‘This is significant’: Hub Politics on Carney’s disappointing budget being overshadowed by a dramatic floor crossing

In this episode of Hub Politics, host Sean Speer is joined by Amanda Galbraith, co-founder and president of Oyster Group, and David Coletto, founder and CEO of Abacus Data, to discuss the Carney government’s first budget and the dramatic floor-crossing that overshadowed its release. They debate whether the budget’s focus on macroeconomic growth and productivity over immediate household relief was the right approach. They then examined the political bombshell of former Conservative MP Chris d’Entremont’s crossing the floor to the Liberals, potentially putting them within reach of a majority government. They explore what this new development means for both Carney’s governing prospects and Pierre Poilievre’s leadership of the Conservative Party. You can listen to this episode on Amazon, Apple, and Spotify. Program Summary This is an automated summary. Please check against delivery. The new government’s first budget was presented as a potential generational shift, yet it was overshadowed by a surprise floor-crossing that threatened to upend the country’s minority government. The budget itself was assessed as a deliberate departure from the recent political past, focusing on macroeconomic foundations rather than immediate microeconomic giveaways. It contained a suite of business-friendly measures, including changes to tax credits, the elimination of an emissions cap, and significant investment in the defence industry. This approach was seen as a necessary, if unglamorous, pivot towards fostering long-term economic growth and productivity after a decade of neglect. It projected an image of competence and a managerial focus on resetting the nation’s economic trajectory, particularly in the face of global uncertainty and the perceived risk of becoming a “vassal state” to its southern neighbour. However, the budget was also found to be sprawling and unfocused, lacking the signature, “sticky” initiatives that typically form the backbone of a government’s political messaging. Instead of two or three easily communicable policies, it offered a “theory of the case”—a belief that government investment and creating a favourable environment for business would ultimately benefit all. This was seen as a significant political gamble. The public has been conditioned to expect direct benefits and struggles to draw a line between abstract concepts like productivity growth and their own ability to buy groceries. The budget offered little to those feeling immediate precarity, struggling with rent or food costs, leading to the conclusion that it spoke to only one of “two worlds” of voters. This communication challenge was compounded by the budget’s perceived lack of an election-ready political strategy. It was not seen as a document designed to win immediate popular support, but rather as a first step in a longer-term plan, akin to the early budgets of past governments that laid the groundwork for more dramatic action later. This pragmatic, non-political posture was interpreted as a reflection of a prime minister who disdains traditional retail politics and trusts in his own brand of competence. That brand, built on a perception of transcending partisanship, was immediately tested by a concurrent political manoeuvre. As the finance minister rose to deliver the budget speech, news broke that a Conservative MP was crossing the floor to join the government benches. This event instantly became the dominant story, relegating the 493-page budget to a secondary concern. The move placed the government within two seats of a majority, sparking intense speculation about further defections and the potential for achieving a stable majority government without an election. The political implications of this development were dissected from multiple angles. For the government, securing a majority would provide the stability needed to pursue its long-term, structural economic agenda without the constant threat of an election. However, the overt celebration of the floor-crossing was seen as a potential strategic misstep, risking the prime minister’s “superpower” of appearing above the political fray. The spectacle of cheering and a high-profile welcome for the new MP was characterised as the “worst of politics,” a grubby display that could alienate voters who despise disloyalty and insider games. For the Conservative opposition, the floor-crossing presented a profound threat—or a potential purification. On one hand, losing a majority to defections could lead to deep disillusionment within a large caucus brimming with would-be ministers. The loss of influence on parliamentary committees, a key outlet for opposition MPs in a minority setting, could foster internal dissent and challenge the leader’s standing. Conversely, it was suggested that the departure of members deemed insufficiently loyal could strengthen the leader by solidifying the party’s base, rallying the faithful around a more ideologically pure movement. The events of the past 24 hours were seen as potentially more consequential for the structure of power than for the content of the budget. The fiscal plan, while significant as a directional marker, was unlikely to change many minds; those who trusted the prime minister’s brand of leadership approved, while those feeling left behind by its macroeconomic focus dismissed it. The true legacy of this period would be determined not by tax credits or productivity mentions, but by whether the government can convert political opportunism into a lasting majority. If successful, the country would embark on a new, more stable chapter. If not, the nation remains in a volatile minority Parliament, where the budget’s long-term ambitions remain just that.