Canadians want reassurance, not austerity, from the federal budget: New polling 

On the eve of Prime Minister Carney’s first budget, my sense is that Canadians aren’t angry. They’re exhausted. They are quite panicked and feel very wary. Our latest Abacus Data polling paints a clear picture: People want the government to keep the ship steady, not slam the wheel. They’re not demanding big, bold change. They’re asking for something far rarer in politics these days: calm, control, and a bit more certainty. That mood matters because how Mark Carney’s Liberals and Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives respond to it will determine who connects best with this country’s temperament in the moment. Canadians prefer the brakes over a handbrake turn Let’s start with the deficit. Only about one in four Canadians (23 percent) think it’s a crisis that must be fixed immediately, no matter the pain. Far more, 43 percent, say it should be dealt with gradually. Another fifth are fine with it if it helps fund things people actually need. That’s not denial (for some reading this, I know, it sure feels like it). That’s prudence. Canadians are effectively saying: “Manage the books, but don’t break the country doing it.” When asked what Ottawa should do next, the largest share (37 percent) wants gradual deficit reduction with modest restraint and limited new investments. Just 17 percent want an all-out mad dash to balance the budget. Even among those who favour more spending, most want it paid for by taxing the wealthy and corporations, not average families. The public’s centre of gravity is unmistakable: slow and steady. That instinct carries through in what Canadians are willing to tolerate. Most can accept modest spending trims (55 percent) and higher taxes on high-income earners (59 percent). But raise the GST? Only 23 percent are okay with that. Push the retirement age back to 67? Just 24 percent. A much larger deficit? Only 30 percent can live with it. The message is consistent: Canadians don’t want shock therapy. They want a plan that feels responsible, not risky. And when we ask what should never be cut—even if taxes have to rise—people point to the same three things: health care (51 percent), housing affordability (46 percent), and seniors’ benefits (44 percent). Those priorities map perfectly onto today’s anxiety: cost of living, health-care system strain, housing insecurity, and an unpredictable economic environment thanks to President Trump. The leadership test: fiscal empathy One of the most revealing questions we asked was: “Who do you trust to balance the budget in a way that would hurt people like you the least?” Carney and the Liberals lead Poilievre and the Conservatives 45 percent to 38 percent. That margin might sound small, but it reflects something deeper.  It’s something I call fiscal empathy. It’s not about who can cut faster. It’s about who voters believe will make the hard calls without making them feel poorer or less secure. It’s what Prime Minister Carney has been calling “difficult responsible choices.” And that’s where the paradox lies for Poilievre. The more he turns the deficit into a national emergency, the more he risks driving voters toward the candidate who feels safer and steadier—Carney. I think that’s why we are hearing more about an “affordability budget” than a “massive deficit.” If Canadians believe we’re in a fiscal crisis, many will default to the leader they trust to handle tough choices with care. That’s not always the loudest voice in the room; it could be the one who’s been a central banker for two G7 countries. So while Poilievre’s fire-and-fury message resonates with those craving change, it could also reinforce Carney’s image as the cool-headed steward. Especially if the Conservative solution looks like austerity, which could include a higher retirement age, deep cuts to provincial transfers, or anything that feels like 1990s déjà vu. The trap only springs shut if Carney overplays his hand. If the budget lacks credible restraint, his brand of competence weakens. But if it signals control and discipline, Poilever’s deficit crisis narrative could backfire—amplifying the contrast between risk and reassurance that undecided voters are quietly weighing. The political risks and opportunities For the Carney Liberals, the opening is obvious. Meet voters where they are—anxious but not combustible; open to restraint but allergic to shock. A budget that emphasizes credible cost control, targeted help for families, and visible discipline would align almost perfectly with the public mood. But too much ambition or complexity would be a mistake. With the government’s climate competitiveness strategy and its immigration plan likely to be a part of the plan, that advice is not likely to be heeded. The other risk is tone. Canadians reward steadiness and punish triumphalism. They want a plan that feels grounded and a leader who can straightforwardly explain where he’s taking the country and how he’ll protect people from the storms ahead. For the Poilievre Conservatives, there’s a real opportunity to pivot from grievance to guardianship. Canadians aren’t rejecting fiscal discipline, they just want it done with care. They also want a focus on affordability, which it seems the Conservatives will focus on. The best-testing message? End waste and corporate welfare, not benefits for seniors or health-care funding. The risk is slipping back into an old-school austerity frame—the idea that credibility requires pain. It doesn’t. In today’s mindset, that could drive anxious voters, especially in Ontario, right back into the Liberal column. Why I don’t think there will be an election—and why the Conservatives shouldn’t want one There’s been some speculation about a fall election. I don’t see it, and frankly, the Conservatives shouldn’t want it. In a moment defined by precarity, calling an election can feel like lighting a match in a dry forest. Campaigns are noisy and destabilizing. They heighten risk, and right now, Canadians crave stability. If an election is triggered because of the Opposition, Poilievre could inadvertently shift the national mindset from frustration to caution, allowing Carney to again embody reassurance and cast himself as the safer choice. If Canadians are seeking calm, the party that introduces turbulence may pay the price. Where this leaves us on budget eve The polls remain tight. Canadians are skeptical of the government’s performance but not ready to gamble. They’ll accept modest belt-tightening and higher taxes on those at the top. But they won’t tolerate measures that hit household budgets or feel unfair. They want proof that health care and housing won’t be left to drift. The coming budget will be judged not by its poetry, but by whether it projects serve to control over spending, over delivery, and over risk and uncertainty. As I’ve argued before, in this age of precarity, calm is the new charisma. And the party that embodies it most convincingly will have the edge when Canadians are next asked to decide who they trust with their future.