Craft Politics

The war in Iran is 11 days old and the picture is shifting fast. A new supreme leader, an oil blockade threat, and Trump calling the whole thing a "little excursion" — Joseph and Andrew unpack why the conversation about international law feels so one-sided.
Plus: the EU quietly drops a protectionist bombshell that nobody seems to want to call by its name, and Carney's Indo-Pacific tour delivers billions in announcements but can any of it replace what's at stake with the US?
The guys close with the latest Canadian polling — and why the Liberals might regret winning back their majority.
The Iran war didn't start on February 28. The regime has been at war with its own people — and with the West — for 47 years. Treating the US-Israeli strikes as Day 1 skips a step.
International law is being selectively invoked. Nobody marched when Hamas crossed a sovereign border. Nobody marched when the regime massacred tens of thousands of its own citizens in January. The outrage only shows up when the West acts.
The opposition from the right (isolationism, cost) is different from the opposition on the left (the regime as victim). Both are wrong, but for very different reasons.
Carney's initial statement was the right call — clear, decisive, among the most hawkish of any world leader. His walkback was driven by caucus management, not conviction.
Starmer's response was embarrassing. A mix of lawyerly caution, Iraq hangover, and pandering to sectarian politics after a by-election loss to the Greens. It damaged the special relationship at exactly the wrong moment.
The EU's Industrial Accelerator Act is tariffs by another name. Macron called Trump's tariffs destructive. Now the EU is doing the same thing and calling it resilience. Everyone's a hypocrite on trade.
Carney's Indo-Pacific tour was impressive in presentation and announceables. But none of it replaces the US trade relationship — it's points of a percent versus multiple points of GDP.
The Liberal lead over the Conservatives has grown to 14 points. Poilievre's tone is evolving, but he's fighting a caricature that won't shift overnight — especially with Trump in the White House as a contrast.
00:00 — Welcome back!00:30 — Iran: new supreme leader, oil weaponised, Trump's mixed signals02:57 — Andrew on the regime's 47-year war and the hypocrisy of international law04:48 — Nobody invoked international law on October 706:07 — Right-wing isolationism vs. left-wing moral inversion07:41 — The regime as imperialist — anti-imperialists supporting imperialism08:00 — Andrew on the hierarchy of evil and the hard left's blind spots11:33 — The domestic threat: IRGC activity in Canada, FBI warnings13:01 — Regime change vs. containment — what's the realistic outcome?15:40 — Can the Iranian people actually overthrow the regime?17:23 — Intelligence infiltration and psychological damage to the regime18:07 — Carney's flip-flop and Starmer's embarrassing response19:04 — Andrew on Starmer: Iraq hangover, sectarian politics, and the special relationship24:29 — Was Carney's walkback driven by Liberal caucus pressure?25:21 — Andrew's rant: we can't bring ourselves to say taking out this regime is a good thing27:30 — Story 2: The EU's "Made in Europe" Act — protectionism dressed up as policy30:25 — Andrew: everyone's a hypocrite on trade33:13 — Why anti-Trump framing lets the EU get away with it34:17 — Should the UK try to get in on Made in Europe?35:44 — Story 3: Carney's Indo-Pacific tour — India, Australia, Japan37:13 — Andrew: great announceables, but it doesn't replace the US39:37 — The real test is what happens with trade south40:24 — Chart of the week: Liberals lead Conservatives by 14 points43:03 — Poilievre's evolving tone — is it too late?45:29 — Andrew: Canadians want a contrast to Trump, not a copy46:50 — The NDP leadership race nobody's watching47:55 — Wrap

A new report from Digital Public Square and Abacus Data surveyed 2,250 Canadians on polarization — and the findings challenge some assumptions. Two-thirds of Canadians place themselves in the political centre. But when asked how they feel about people on the other side, the picture shifts dramatically. We dig into why the left is better at disliking the right than vice versa, why younger Canadians are more open to leaders who bend the rules, and what can actually be done about it.
Key Takeaways
Canada's polarization problem is primarily affective — Canadians aren't far apart on the spectrum, but they've developed strong negative feelings toward the other side. Even one step left or right of centre triggers in-group/out-group dynamics.
The hostility is asymmetrical. Slightly left-of-centre Canadians view the right more negatively than slightly right-of-centre Canadians view the left.
The far right is more likely to believe their views represent the majority. When elections don't reflect that, it feeds a sense of injustice and conspiratorial thinking.
The "Civic Optimists" — Canadians most satisfied with democracy — skew heavily 55+. Younger Canadians are more cynical, more right-leaning, and more open to illiberal tactics. But they're also the strongest defenders of minority rights.
Digital Public Square has been testing interventions that correct misperceptions about the other side, with early experimental evidence showing it builds empathy.
Chapters
00:00 — Cold open00:33 — Introduction: polarization in Canada and the UK02:14 — Affective vs. ideological polarization05:42 — The shifting definition of "the middle"08:13 — Political identity beyond politics: culture, sports, media12:28 — Who Canadians blame for polarization13:40 — Why the left is better at disliking the right16:24 — The far right's majority perception problem21:12 — The six segments: Frustrated Pessimists, Civic Optimists, and more27:20 — Young Canadians and the appetite for rule-bending leaders30:10 — What actually works: DPS interventions and evidence36:19 — Electoral reform debate — and Andrew's European pushback43:51 — Put the phone down and go to the pub
Links
Full report: digitalpublicsquare.org
DPS Substack: dpsorg.substack.com

This week on Craft Politics, a sneak peek from Joseph's new show, Masters in Public Affairs.Episode 3 goes deep on Frank Luntz's Words That Work — the book that argues your message doesn't matter nearly as much as what your audience does with it after it leaves your mouth.In this episode:- Why Henry Kissinger's biggest regret was a word he didn't chooseThe core principle: communication is determined by the receiver, not the sender- How single-word changes moved public opinion by double digits- Four mental models for designing messages that actually land- Where practitioners misread Luntz — and the honest limits of language- How this connects to Lippmann and McRaney from earlier in the seriesAbout Masters in Public Affairs:A new show where Joseph goes deep on one foundational book per episode, extracts the durable ideas, and translates them into mental models public affairs practitioners can use. If you enjoy this episode, subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

The week started with breaking news: CPC MP Matt Jeneroux crosses the floor to join the Liberal caucus — the third Conservative to do so in recent months. Joseph and Andrew unpack what it means for the Liberals' path to a majority, whether it takes a 2026 election off the table, and why Mark Carney keeps defying conventional political logic.

Then, Canada's new defence industrial strategy gets the full treatment: half a trillion dollars in procurement, 70% Canadian content targets, and the messy gap between announcements and delivery.

The episode closes across the pond, where Keir Starmer has now executed over a dozen major U-turns — including reversing a plan to delay local elections, days after promising no more reversals. Joseph and Andrew compare approval ratings that tell two very different stories about what non-politician leaders look like when they work, and when they don't.

Key Takeaways

- Matt Jeneroux's floor crossing puts the Liberals within striking distance of a one-seat majority, pending three outstanding by-elections — one of which was previously decided by a single vote.

- With a potential majority in reach and strong polling, the political case for a 2026 snap election is weaker than it was a week ago; Carney appears more interested in building a track record than capitalizing on a polling window.

- Canada's new defense industrial strategy earmarks over $500B in procurement, aims to hit NATO's 2% GDP target ahead of schedule, and sets a goal of 5% by 2035 — but the real test is whether a new procurement agency can cut through decades of dysfunction.

- Carney's appointment of Janice Charette as chief trade negotiator with the U.S -- we're big fans.

- Starmer's approval rating has hit record lows — negative 47% — worse than any sitting British prime minister in polling history; the contrast with Carney's numbers is striking and worth understanding.
- The local elections U-turn is particularly damaging because it came days after Starmer explicitly ruled out more reversals; Reform UK forcing the government's hand via a legal challenge compounds the optics.

Chapters

0:00 — Welcome back + Alberta deep dive reaction
1:30 — Matt Jeneroux crosses the floor: what it means and why the Liberals wanted him
5:00 — Updated election outlook: is 2026 still happening?
8:30 — Mark Carney's governing style and why he keeps defying political convention
10:30 — Janice Charette named Canada's chief U.S. trade negotiator
14:00 — Canada's defense industrial strategy: half a trillion dollars and 70% Canadian procurement
19:30 — Keir Starmer reverses course on local elections — U-turn number 12+
23:30 — Approval ratings compared: Carney vs. Starmer
29:00 — Tumbler Ridge, partisan unity, and a moment worth noticing
32:00 — Wrap-up

Keywords
Matt Jeneroux floor crossing, Canadian federal politics 2026, Mark Carney majority, Liberal caucus, Canadian defense procurement, NATO spending Canada, Janice Charette, trade negotiator, Canada-US relations, Keir Starmer U-turns, UK local elections 2025, Starmer approval ratings, Reform UK, Craft Politics podcast

Alberta may be heading toward a citizen-initiated referendum on independence from Canada. Dave Cournoyer — who has covered Alberta politics for over two decades — joins Joseph and Andrew to unpack how the province's separatist movement evolved from a fringe cottage industry into an organized force embedded within the governing United Conservative Party. The conversation covers the deep historical grievances between Alberta and Ottawa, how opposition to COVID-19 public health measures became the organizing catalyst for today's separatist groups, Premier Danielle Smith's increasingly difficult balancing act, and the urgent question at the centre of it all: who is going to lead the pro-Canada campaign — and do they even have the infrastructure to win?Takeaways- Alberta separatism isn't new, but this iteration is different. The current movement organized around opposition to COVID-19 public health measures, spent years building grassroots networks in rural Alberta, and has now embedded itself within the governing UCP's riding associations and activist base.- Pollster Janet Brown identifies three groups of Albertans on separation: roughly a quarter to a third who support it, a third who are unhappy with Ottawa but don't want to leave, and a quarter to a third who are firmly pro-Canada.- The Alberta Prosperity Project needs approximately 178,000 signatures by May to trigger a referendum. The pro-Canada Forever Canadian campaign collected 456,000 signatures — but a signature campaign and a referendum campaign are very different things.- Danielle Smith's "sovereign Alberta within a united Canada" positioning has worked so far, but a binary referendum question will force her to choose a side.- Three potential pro-Canada leaders have emerged — Thomas Lukaszuk, Jason Kenney, and Naheed Nenshi — but their relationships are fraught and there is no unified campaign infrastructure.- Andrew draws direct parallels to Brexit and Scotland's independence referendum: the leave side runs an aspirational campaign, the stay side gets trapped in "project fear," and a referendum legitimizes the question regardless of outcome.- Foreign interference is a serious wildcard. Separatist leaders have claimed meetings with the US State Department, and senior US officials have publicly commented on Alberta separatism.- Dave's assessment: a referendum held today would lose decisively. A referendum held 10 months from now, in an unpredictable campaign environment, is a different story entirely.Chapters00:00 Introduction to Alberta's Political Landscape02:50 Historical Grievances and Alberta's Identity05:42 The Trudeau Legacy and Its Impact on Alberta08:10 The Rise of Alberta Separatism11:11 The Role of the Alberta Prosperity Project13:46 Current Political Dynamics and the UCP16:47 Referendums as a Political Tool19:13 Future Implications for Alberta's Governance26:56 The Dangers of Referenda30:00 Legitimizing Separatism31:47 The Pro-Canada Campaign Challenge35:46 Key Figures in the Pro-Canada Movement39:59 Foreign Interference and Its Implications44:46 The Future of Alberta's Political Landscape