A more nuanced and instructive approach to understanding consumers, voters, and workers.

Summary

This analysis challenges the traditional notion of a simple left-right political spectrum in Canada, revealing a more nuanced, multi-dimensional landscape. By surveying 1,500 Canadians in December, our research mapped voters’ economic and cultural values, identifying five distinct ideological segments that defy conventional ideological boundaries. Rather than fitting neatly into “progressive” or “conservative” boxes, or on a left/right spectrum, Canadians hold complex and sometimes contradictory beliefs, blending progressive economic preferences with cultural caution, or vice versa.

Far from a stable political centre, public opinion is fluid and responsive to changing circumstances. For instance, a group of voters who supported Justin Trudeau’s Liberals in 2021 may pivot to Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives today—not because their core values shifted, but because different issues now resonate more strongly. Inflation, housing affordability, and cultural anxieties have risen in prominence, while traditional assumptions about Canadians’ inherently progressive nature no longer hold universally true.

These findings have important implications not only for political campaigns, but also for leaders in business, labour, advocacy, and policy. Organizations seeking to persuade, mobilize, or market must recognize that appeals to a single dimension—purely economic or purely cultural—will often fail. Instead, leaders must craft strategies that address a mix of values: embracing economic fairness while acknowledging cultural attachments, promoting policies that feel both forward-looking and grounded in familiar traditions.

As Canada approaches another federal election and continues to navigate global and domestic uncertainties, the capacity to understand and speak to these multi-dimensional viewpoints will be a decisive factor. By recognizing that Canadians are economically interventionist yet culturally cautious, and tailoring messaging and policies accordingly, leaders can better align with public sentiment, build trust, and influence outcomes. The era of relying on a one-dimensional ideological scale is over, and those who adapt to this richer, more textured understanding will better understand and thereby shape Canada’s political, economic, and social future.

Introduction: How Could Trudeau and Poilievre Both Win a Majority Within a Decade?

How is it that two political leaders who seem so different—Justin Trudeau and Pierre Poilievre—could both plausibly win majority governments within the same decade? This question sits at the heart of my work to understand Canada’s complex and evolving political landscape. Almost ten years ago, Justin Trudeau’s Liberals swept into office riding a wave of optimism and broad progressive sentiment. We saw a surge in youth turnout that drove the Liberals from third to first in popular support to win a majority government.

Today, as we look ahead to a likely federal election in 2025, the prospect of a majority under Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre feels just as plausible. Poilievre’s approach stands out not simply for its conservative economics—emphasizing smaller government, lower taxes, and market-driven policies—but also for its tone and message, which depart sharply from the more technocratic and inclusive messaging that characterized Trudeau’s early tenure.

Where Trudeau once channeled a hopeful, pluralistic spirit, Poilievre’s style is more combative, populist, and blunt. He is eager to tap into economic frustrations, cultural anxieties, and the sense that Canada’s elites are out of touch. The language he uses, the villains he names, and the solutions he proposes feel very different, resonating with Canadians who believe the status quo is no longer delivering on its promises.

Rather than smoothing edges and seeking consensus, Poilievre’s conservatism is about drawing contrasts and galvanizing his supporters with clarity and directness. He positions himself against the “gatekeepers” who, in his narrative, stand between Canadians and their dreams. By doing so, he isn’t just reacting to changing public opinion; he’s actively working to shape it. And in the current climate—marked by inflation, global uncertainty, and heightened cultural values—this approach finds fertile ground. Today, as we look ahead to a likely federal election in 2025, it is highly likely the Conservatives will be left with a large majority government.

Public Opinion is Driving This Change

Public opinion—shaped by immediate economic pressures, cultural anxieties, and a world in flux—is at the core of this volatility. Inflation’s impact remains stubborn, raising the spectre of a persistent “inflationitis” that stirs a scarcity mindset among Canadians. Immigration attitudes, once broadly positive, have shifted rapidly, as our latest data show half of Canadians believe immigration is harming the nation. These changes in sentiment, discussed in my recent piece for The Hub on the erosion of a stable political centre, highlight just how fluid the ideological ground beneath our feet has become. The traditional “left-right” spectrum no longer (if it ever did) captures the depth and nuance of how Canadians think about economic policy, social values, and identity in a changing world.

To make sense of this complexity, we decided to move beyond one-dimensional labels. I asked 1,500 Canadians a series of forced-choice questions—10 cultural and 10 economic—to build a new framework for understanding their worldviews. Rather than placing voters along a single ideological line, I have mapped a multi-dimensional space where culture and economics intersect in surprising and meaningful ways. I took a cue from similar work that an American polling firm, Echelon Insights, did in the United States.

As we delve into this data and segment Canadians into distinct ideological clusters, my goal is to illuminate the undercurrents shaping not just the next election, but the broader patterns of thought that define our country’s political, consumer, and worker mindset. By doing so, we can better understand the opportunities and challenges facing parties, advocates, businesses, and governments. Over the next 12 to 24 months and beyond, this foundation will guide how we interpret public opinion, inform strategic decisions, and anticipate the next chapter in Canada’s unfolding political story.

Methodology and Approach

To bring greater clarity to Canada’s ideological landscape, I developed a segmentation approach based on a series of carefully constructed forced-choice questions. We asked 1,500 Canadian adults, surveyed between December 4 and 8, to choose between two contrasting options on a set of 20 questions—10 focused on economic issues and 10 on cultural issues. For example, on the cultural side, we probed attitudes toward immigration, gender equity, abortion, and national pride. On the economic side, we explored views on taxation, housing affordability, healthcare policy, and income inequality.

This nationally representative sample was drawn with careful attention to demographics, region, and other relevant factors to ensure our findings reflect the broader population. By forcing respondents to pick between two distinct positions each time, we could measure their underlying beliefs more clearly, placing them into distinct ideological segments.

Culturally, these dimensions capture sentiments around identity, social norms, and how Canada should navigate questions of diversity and morality. Economically, we assessed preferences related to government intervention, redistribution, and market regulation. While I was inspired by segmentation work done by Echelon Insights in the United States, we adapted the framework to Canada’s unique political environment. This approach allows us to map a richer, more nuanced understanding of Canadian public opinion.

Mapping the Ideological Segments

Our analysis identified five distinct segments of the Canadian electorate, each defined by their positions on cultural and economic issues. Rather than relying on a simple left-right frame, these groups span multiple dimensions, reflecting the tension between economic intervention or restraint and cultural openness or caution. Taken together, these segments help explain why Canadian politics can feel so fluid and unpredictable: the old binaries don’t capture the complexity of how people see their country, its challenges, and its future.

Consider first the largest group, about 32% of Canadians, who are best described as economically and culturally mixed. These are the people who hold both progressive and conservative impulses in tension. They’re comfortable with a more active government role in some areas—like ensuring affordable healthcare, promoting better access to education, or even increasing taxes on the wealthy if it helps create a fairer playing field—but they’re not ready to embrace every new cultural shift without reservation. They worry that Canada’s traditions risk fading too quickly, or that social norms are changing at a pace that feels unsettling. Many in this group are suburban parents, often in their 40s or 50s, living near cities like Toronto or Vancouver, raising kids who will soon head off to university. They pay their mortgages, commute to work, and pick up their children from after-school activities. They believe in Canada’s potential to thrive in a big, interconnected world and see cooperation with others as a strength. Yet, when they flip on the news and hear about rising housing costs, uncertain job prospects, or neighbourhoods in flux, their optimism can fade, replaced by a sense that resources are scarce and that maybe the world is not as welcoming as they hoped. These Canadians are pragmatic and open to persuasion. Their vote isn’t locked in. They’re the kind of people who might have voted Liberal in one election and could consider the Conservatives or the NDP in another, depending on who seems best able to balance economic fairness with cultural reassurance.

About 24% of Canadians land solidly on the progressive end of both economic and cultural dimensions. They are often younger, more likely female, well-educated, and concentrated in urban centres—imagine a resident of Montreal’s Plateau, an early-career professional in downtown Toronto, or a young activist in Vancouver’s Mount Pleasant neighbourhood. These voters see Canada as a place that can and should lead on issues like income inequality, climate change, and social justice. They aren’t convinced that Canada is “the greatest country” in some jingoistic sense; rather, they believe Canada can become better by embracing diversity and rectifying historical injustices. They strongly support abortion rights, tackle racism head-on, and back regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They’re comfortable with the idea that government can play a big role in making life more equitable, and they don’t flinch at policies that limit corporate excess or redistribute wealth. For them, the world isn’t necessarily dangerous—it’s beautiful, full of good people—and Canada’s role is to welcome others in, protect vulnerable populations, and push itself to be more inclusive and kind.

Now consider the 21% who combine economic progressivism with cultural conservatism. These Canadians might live in smaller towns or rural communities in the Prairies or Atlantic Canada, or in the suburbs around Toronto and Vancouver, where traditional ways of life feel under threat. Imagine a family running a small shop in a coastal community of Nova Scotia or working the land in Saskatchewan. They could also be a first or second generation Canadian who think Trudeau’s progressive bent has been too much. They don’t buy into laissez-faire economics: they see the value of government programs, believe in helping the less fortunate, and want to ensure healthcare remains accessible to all. At the same time, they’re uneasy with some aspects of cultural change, feeling that Canada’s identity could be diluted by too much immigration or that social norms are being rewritten too quickly. They might wonder, for instance, why schools are debating the inclusion of transgender athletes in sports teams, or why the way we talk about Canadian history seems so fraught. Still, these folks aren’t hardened reactionaries. Their support for a stronger social safety net and government intervention coexists with a desire for stability and a sense that the world can be dangerous. They’re looking for leaders who appreciate economic fairness but understand their cultural worries—politicians who’ll help with housing or healthcare but won’t rush into every new cultural experiment.

Some 17% of Canadians lean conservative on both fronts. These are often older individuals and more likely male, sometimes found in small towns or on the outskirts of larger cities where skepticism of government runs deep. Think of a family in rural Alberta or a longstanding homeowner in a suburban Ontario neighbourhood that has changed little over the decades. They believe strongly in personal responsibility and traditional values. Government intervention in the economy—beyond the bare essentials—feels like unnecessary meddling. These Canadians are apt to say, “Work hard, earn what you get, and don’t rely on handouts.” Culturally, they hold tight to conventional norms and may be more restrictive on immigration, or suspicious about newcomers fitting in. They’re not interested in aggressive climate regulation if it risks jobs. They see the world as a place that, while not hopeless, demands vigilance. Security and stability trump experimentation. Their political choices often lean Conservative, as they prefer leaders who promise lower taxes and stricter immigration controls, and who don’t apologize for Canada’s traditional identities.

Finally, the smallest segment—about 6%—blends economic conservatism with cultural progressivism – the fiscally conservative and socially progressive Canadians. Picture a younger professional who went to university, perhaps majored in business, and now works in the tech sector in Calgary or Waterloo. They are also the people likely running the country, newsrooms, corporations, and public sector organizations. They are the elite that many are currently running against. They’re making a decent living and don’t want heavy government intervention that might limit innovation, raise taxes, or stifle entrepreneurial spirit. They believe people should keep more of their earnings and that market solutions are often best. Yet they also hold firmly progressive cultural views. They have friends from all backgrounds, support reproductive rights, embrace diversity in their workplace, and have no problem with Canada welcoming more immigrants. They’re sceptical of big government but comfortable with a fluid, diverse society. These Canadians might feel politically homeless sometimes, not perfectly aligned with the Liberals, NDP, or Conservatives. They want leaders who can champion both economic autonomy and cultural inclusiveness without tacking too far in any one ideological direction.

When we step back to look at the whole picture, what emerges is a portrait of a country that defies a single narrative. The largest segment resists easy classification, blending progressive and conservative instincts. Another quarter pushes hard for both cultural and economic justice. One in five wants a strong hand in the economy but more cultural caution. A smaller bloc is conservative across the board. And a handful stand out for their libertarian tendencies on economics but liberal instincts on social issues. Each group reflects a set of lived experiences: the suburban parent juggling work and family, the downtown professional pedaling to the office with climate anxiety on their mind, the rural family watching their traditions evolve in real-time, the older homeowner who’s earned everything through grit, and the young entrepreneur who believes free markets can coexist with cultural openness.

Taken together, these Canadians represent a mosaic of worldviews. They differ in the intensity of their optimism, in their readiness to embrace cultural change, and in how deeply they trust government to solve complex problems. Yet collectively, they give us a sense of the country’s median voter—someone who likely sits between these extremes, more inclined than not to want a bit of both: some economic security without losing entrepreneurial freedoms, some cultural openness without tearing down all the old signposts. This median voter is neither purely progressive nor purely conservative, neither comfortable with unfettered markets nor enthusiastic about heavy-handed state control, neither closed off to cultural change nor racing headlong into it. Instead, they represent Canada’s ongoing search for balance. In a world where issues evolve quickly and outside forces—from global migration to climate pressures—shape our national conversation, understanding these segments is the key to making sense of our politics. They show us why leaders like Trudeau and Poilievre can both, in their own ways, lay claim to the country’s centre of gravity, and why no party can rest comfortably under a single, stable ideological umbrella.

The Political Opinions of these Segments

In examining the political opinions and shifting loyalties of each ideological segment, it’s clear that these Canadians are not static in their preferences. They weigh the party leaders, policy proposals, and day-to-day realities of their lives and communities as they consider where to place their vote. Each segment’s blend of cultural and economic views creates a particular lens through which they interpret political choices. The data show that over the past few years, vote intentions have changed notably, and these shifts underscore the importance of understanding these groups as evolving, responsive audiences rather than as fixed ideological camps.

Consider first the Economic & Cultural Mixed group, which makes up about 32% of the electorate. This segment has historically been something of a bellwether: these Canadians are pragmatic, moderate, and open to different parties, depending on the political moment. Their current vote intentions show that the Conservatives have made inroads here, seeing about a 10 point increase in support compared to their performance in 2021. Meanwhile, the Liberals have seen a decline of around 10 points among these voters, suggesting a certain disillusionment or fatigue with Justin Trudeau’s government. The NDP’s support among this group has remained relatively stable, neither surging nor collapsing. Given that the mixed segment doesn’t have a firm partisan anchor and has a balanced age and gender profile, these shifts likely stem from the cumulative weight of recent economic anxieties—persistent inflation, housing affordability challenges, and a sense that the government may not be delivering on core promises. Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives have found some resonance by speaking to affordability and “gatekeepers,” while Trudeau’s once-sunny optimism has worn thin. In terms of net favourability, Poilievre lands at a modest but positive +13 among this segment, while Trudeau sits at -31, a startling gap that highlights how the Liberal leader’s brand has tarnished among these swing voters. Singh’s net -6 rating is more neutral, suggesting the NDP leader hasn’t alienated them but also hasn’t fully inspired them either.

By contrast, Economic & Cultural Progressives—24% of the electorate—remain more loyal to progressive politics, with the NDP and Liberals generally performing well here. Historically, these voters form part of the “urban progressive” coalition that delivered results for the Liberals in 2015 and helped them hold onto power in 2019 and 2021. However, since 2021, the NDP appears to have gained ground (+4) while the Liberals have lost some traction (-13) within this group. This could reflect a desire for bolder action on social justice, climate, and economic inequality than they perceive from the Liberals right now. Trudeau’s image may have dulled; at -24 among these progressives, his net favourability isn’t as bad as with other groups, it’s not positive either. Singh, on the other hand, is at +37—suggesting that, for these voters, the NDP leader provides a more compelling, activist voice who aligns with their values. Poilievre’s -47 rating here is unsurprising. His more populist, conservative rhetoric and political career may hold some superficial appeal, but his culturally conservative streak and more right-leaning economic prescriptions fall flat. These voters want robust government action, multicultural inclusion, and a progressive agenda. They aren’t looking for a radical conservative shift from the current government.

Then we have the Economic Progressives & Cultural Conservatives, who make up about 22% of the electorate. They’re a fascinating group because they blend a desire for state intervention in the economy with a protective stance on cultural matters. In 2021, these voters might have been spread across parties, but today we see a marked shift: the Conservatives have gained (+16 points) while the Liberals have suffered (-15) indicating that the biggest shift in voting behaviour has happened with these Canadians. Interestingly, the NDP is down slightly (-2), while the Bloc Québécois and the Greens have not made substantial inroads. This shift toward the Conservatives among this group may seem counterintuitive given their economic progressivism, but it suggests that Poilievre’s messaging on affordability and frustration with political elites resonates with them. They want the government to help deliver fairness, but they also want cultural stability—and Poilievre has positioned himself as a defender against rapid cultural change, at least rhetorically. His +16 net favourability here underscores the appeal of his cultural narrative, whereas Trudeau’s -40 rating suggests these voters feel the Liberals have gone too far, too fast socially, or have lost touch with their everyday concerns. Singh’s -14 rating suggests the NDP’s message hasn’t fully clicked either, possibly because these voters see the NDP as progressive on culture, which doesn’t align with their more traditional social leanings.

Economic & Cultural Conservatives, about 16% of Canadians, are perhaps the most naturally aligned with the Conservative Party. It’s not surprising that the Conservatives have seen a strong improvement here since 2021 (+12 points), while the Liberals have dropped (-8). This group’s profile—often older, more rural, and sceptical of government intervention—lines up well with the Conservative pitch. The Conservative brand resonates strongly, delivering Pierre Poilievre a staggering +63 net favourability rating. By comparison, Trudeau is at -78, reflecting a profound disconnect between these voters and the current Prime Minister. The NDP doesn’t fare well here, landing at -67 under Singh. For these voters, the Conservative vision of individual responsibility, limited government, and preserving a more traditional sense of national identity matches their worldview. Recent economic strains might have intensified their preference for stability and lower taxes, and Poilievre’s attacks on “gatekeepers” echo their long-standing suspicion of bureaucratic meddling and top-down control.

The smallest group, Economic Conservatives & Cultural Progressives (6% of the electorate), is the most idiosyncratic. They like culturally open policies—supporting diversity, reproductive rights, and anti-racism—but they also want limited government interference in the economy. This combination makes them less easily satisfied by any mainstream party. Currently, the Conservatives have gained some ground here (+4 points), while the Liberals and NDP both appear to have lost a bit since 2021. This is the segment the Liberals have held their support the most. While Poilievre’s focus on economic freedom may appeal to them, but are repelled by the party’s cultural conservatism. At the same time, these voters could be frustrated that the Liberals and NDP don’t match their desire for economic restraint, finding them too interventionist or fiscally loose. Poilievre’s net favourability here is a modest but positive +4, Trudeau’s is +7 (interestingly better than among all other groups and the only one with a net positive), and Singh sits at -5. These numbers show a relatively open-minded, if skeptical, audience. They’re not fully sold on anyone, but they might gravitate toward a leader who champions small government while embracing cultural diversity. Parties that cannot balance this delicate blend risk losing these voters to either strategic abstention or reluctant support for a party that only partially fits their worldview.

There are some important lessons from this data. Parties can’t treat the electorate as a monolith. The Liberals will struggle if they fail to reassure the Mixed segment about economic competence, or cannot reinspire the Progressive base that once embraced them. The Conservatives’ challenge is to hold onto their gains and not alienate cultural moderates even as they appeal to cultural conservatives. The NDP must find ways to reach beyond its progressive core if it wants to grow, appealing to those who share its economic vision but may be wary of its cultural or environmental ambitions. Campaign messages must also adapt. Different segments respond to different cues: appeals to national pride and cultural stability won’t resonate with Economic & Cultural Progressives, while calls for big government solutions may alienate Economic Conservatives & Cultural Progressives.

Moreover, leader favourability ratings indicate the potential and limitations of each figurehead. Poilievre’s positive ratings among Mixed and culturally cautious groups show he’s making gains where the Conservatives need them. Trudeau’s net negatives across all but the smallest culturally progressive segment highlight a pressing need for him to reset his appeal or risk losing more ground. Singh’s mixed ratings reveal a leader who can excite his base but has yet to find a compelling narrative that draws in others.

As we move forward, understanding these ideological segments and their evolving political preferences will be critical. Campaigns need not only the right policies but also the right tone and narrative to win over Canadians who are increasingly comfortable shifting their allegiances. In a political environment defined by uncertainty and rapid change, the party that truly understands these segments will have a leg up in the next election—and possibly beyond.

What Issues Do These Groups Prioritize?

When we look at how these ideological segments prioritize issues facing Canada, certain patterns emerge that tie directly back to their worldviews and the interplay between economic and cultural values. Across all groups, cost of living stands out as a near-universal concern. Even among those who differ on cultural openness or the appropriate size of government, there’s a shared anxiety about making ends meet. Inflation, persistent affordability challenges, and the struggle to cover basic expenses unite Canadians across the ideological spectrum, reminding us that no amount of cultural alignment can insulate anyone from economic headwinds.

Still, the resonance of other issues varies widely between segments. Economic & Cultural Progressives, for instance, are particularly inclined to see the world as “a big, beautiful place” where global connectivity is an asset. While cost of living tops their agenda, they’re also more likely to name climate change and environmental protection as key issues. These are the voters who believe that government must do more to solve systemic problems. They’re less troubled by immigration—only about one in five cites “too many immigrants” as a top concern—and this aligns with their optimistic, inclusive worldview. For them, the solutions lie in collective action, international cooperation, and policies that ensure no one is left behind.

In sharp contrast, Economic & Cultural Conservatives tend to have a more guarded worldview. Their concerns about immigration and national identity run deeper: around half of them say that too many immigrants are being welcomed into Canada. They are also more likely to emphasize crime and public safety, seeing the world as fraught with risks that must be managed. Cost of living is still a top priority, but they seek solutions that minimize government intervention and restore stability through traditional, market-driven approaches. Their skepticism about rapid cultural and social change fits with a priority list that places less emphasis on climate action and more on controlling borders, crime, and perceived threats.

Meanwhile, Economic Progressives & Cultural Conservatives offer a hybrid perspective. They care about affordability—like nearly everyone else—but are also more likely than the fully progressive segments to worry about immigration. This combination suggests their cultural caution influences their interpretation of economic challenges. To them, the solution might still be a robust social safety net and active government role in managing the economy, but they’d prefer that cultural change not outpace the community’s capacity to adapt. The interplay of economic fairness and cultural stability defines their policy lens and sets them apart from those who embrace cultural dynamism more eagerly.

The Economic Conservatives & Cultural Progressives, the smallest group, reflect another unique blend. They accept cultural diversity, have few qualms about Canada’s openness to newcomers, and maintain a “big, beautiful world” perspective. Yet, they resist heavy-handed state intervention and might view climate policy as something the private sector can address more efficiently. They recognize cost of living as an issue, but would likely advocate for solutions that harness competition, innovation, and market incentives rather than top-down government mandates. This makes their policy preferences more eclectic: pro-immigration but wary of large public spending, open-minded but focused on leveraging market forces.

The Economic & Cultural Mixed group, Canada’s largest cluster, consistently falls somewhere in the middle. They worry about affordability and housing, and while a majority sees the world in a positive, open light, a substantial minority is drawn to narratives of threat and insecurity. Their mixed nature means they’re pulled in multiple directions. They might name climate change as an issue but not with the intensity of hardline progressives. They might be concerned about immigration, but not as convinced that it’s a core problem as the more conservative groups. Their perspective tends to reflect the push and pull of a country navigating both economic uncertainty and cultural evolution.

All these differences in issue prioritization link back to each segment’s broader economic, social, and political environment. Persistent inflation and soaring housing costs are testing Canadians’ faith in their leaders and institutions, forcing them to reassess which party or policy solutions can deliver relief. Simultaneously, the rapid pace of cultural transformation—from shifting norms around gender and race to debates on immigration levels—means that even those who share economic priorities might differ dramatically on how they view the world and what constitutes a threat.

This intersection of worldview and issue salience is crucial. The progressive segments see global connectivity, environmental stewardship, and social justice as essential to addressing challenges. They believe we can embrace newcomers, tackle climate change, and help the vulnerable all at once. The more conservative segments, meanwhile, view the world as a place where threats—cultural dilution, crime, economic disruption—must be countered. They see policy as a tool for reinforcing borders, traditions, and economic independence.

For campaign strategists, advocacy groups, and policymakers, understanding these intersections is key. It’s not enough to propose solutions to the cost of living without recognizing how cultural outlooks shape what kinds of solutions are acceptable. Neither can a party push a strong pro-immigration or climate-first agenda without acknowledging that a significant share of voters feel uneasy about the pace of change. In effect, the top issues Canadians identify are filtered through each segment’s lens—one that merges economic interests, cultural comfort, and the perceived openness or hostility of the broader world.

In today’s environment, leaders who grasp these intersections can speak more effectively to the electorate, to consumers, and to workers. Policies that reduce financial stress must be framed in ways that either reassure cultural conservatives about Canada’s identity or convince progressives that justice and equity remain central. Whether addressing climate change, immigration, or housing, each solution must connect with the underlying worldview of the segment it aims to engage. In this complex political landscape, the interplay of top issues and worldview narratives will shape how campaigns are run, how governments set priorities, and how Canadians themselves see their future.

Why the traditional left/right self-identitication doesn’t work.

For decades, political observers and researchers have leaned heavily on a simple left-right continuum to understand where voters stand ideologically. This linear scale—from left to right—has long been the go-to framework for measuring how people see themselves in the political world. Yet, when we ask Canadians directly to place themselves along this familiar axis, the responses rarely align cleanly with the multi-dimensional, more nuanced views we’ve uncovered in our research.

The data I collected show that even within each of the five segments we identified—clusters formed by how Canadians grapple with economic and cultural questions—self-identified ideology on a left-right scale often doesn’t match the underlying complexity of their beliefs. Consider the Economic & Cultural Progressives, a group that is, by definition, both economically interventionist and socially liberal. We might expect nearly all of them to identify as being on the political left. But in practice, while a good portion do say they lean left or centre-left, a substantial number call themselves “centre” or even “centre-right.” This suggests that their sense of what constitutes “left” or “right” is fluid and influenced by factors other than the purely policy-oriented questions we asked. The same puzzling pattern emerges in other groups. Economic & Cultural Conservatives, who we’d expect to cluster around the right end of the scale, also have pockets of people who call themselves “centre” or even “centre-left.”

Why does this happen? Part of the issue is that the left-right axis is too blunt an instrument. It simplifies an increasingly diverse and complex set of values, interests, and life experiences. Many Canadians pick the “centre” not because their views neatly align with moderate positions, but because they don’t feel fully comfortable embracing an ideological label. Others may call themselves “left” or “right” for identity reasons—cultural, historical, or generational—rather than as a precise reflection of their stance on specific policies. In some cases, voters who are culturally conservative but economically progressive have nowhere to place themselves comfortably. They might choose “centre” or “centre-left” because they care about economic fairness, or they might say “centre-right” because they hold traditional values, even if they think the government should do more on affordability.

Another factor is that the meaning of “left” and “right” can vary widely depending on personal interpretation. One voter’s “left” might mean strongly pro-union and environmentalist, while another’s “left” might just mean slightly more compassionate policies within a capitalist framework. Similarly, “right” can mean anything from libertarian-style economic freedom to social conservatism mixed with nationalism. When we compress these complex differences into a single line, we miss the richness of their actual worldview.

Ultimately, the contradictions and peculiarities in how these segments self-identify highlight the limitations of the old single-axis model. Canadians don’t see their political beliefs as a single point on a line; they often hold progressive and conservative ideas simultaneously, responding differently to cultural and economic issues. As society and politics become more diverse, understanding voters requires more than a one-dimensional scale. The data make it clear: a richer, multi-dimensional approach is now essential to truly capture the complexity of Canadian public opinion.

What To Make of All of This

As we step back from this deep exploration of Canada’s ideological segmentation, a picture emerges that challenges many of the assumptions still guiding political commentary, advocacy efforts, and marketing strategies. The traditional shorthand of left and right, so often used to frame debates and predict voter behaviour, doesn’t come close to reflecting the complexity of Canadian public opinion today. Instead, what we see is a multi-dimensional landscape in which cultural and economic views combine in subtle ways, producing clusters of Canadians that diverge on what they want from government and society, how they see the world, and what issues matter most to them.

For political actors—whether preparing for the next federal election or navigating provincial contests—these findings should be sobering. Consider the unpredictability we’ve already seen. Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party, which swept to power in 2015 promising sunny ways and a new era of progressive governance, now faces a much more fragmented and demanding electorate. Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives, seemingly more populist and unapologetically focused on cost-of-living and personal freedoms, have found fertile ground in places once thought off-limits. The NDP, Bloc Québécois, and Greens all seek to carve out their own distinct space, but without careful attention to the interplay of cultural and economic preferences, they risk oversimplifying their pitch or missing large swaths of potential supporters.

One of the key takeaways is that Canadians’ views can’t be easily mapped onto a single axis—and that has strategic implications. Campaigns in 2025, for example, will need messaging and platforms that do more than occupy a neat spot in the so-called centre. After all, our data show that the “centre” isn’t stable or homogenous. The largest single segment—those who are mixed economically and culturally—are up for grabs, but they’re not “centrists” in the traditional sense.

They’re people who want certain forms of government action coupled with a cautious approach to social change. They’re as likely to be swayed by a well-framed policy on housing affordability as they are by a narrative that allays fears about cultural upheaval. Campaigns and parties that rely on rote appeals to a mythical moderate voter are bound to be disappointed.

It’s here that the importance of framing and agenda setting comes into play. What matters isn’t that their core values have changed, but that a different issue set is now capturing their attention. If the conversation shifts from national identity and cultural traditions to affordability and job security, the same voter who once voted Liberal might now find the Conservative message more in tune with their concerns. This isn’t about ideological inconsistency; it’s about which dimension of their identity or interests are being activated at a given time. Leaders who understand this can shape the salience of issues—highlighting certain challenges over others—to engage specific audiences. By strategically emphasizing either economic fairness or cultural continuity, campaigns and organizations can prompt these voters to prioritize one aspect of their worldview over another, pulling them in politically consequential directions without having them fundamentally alter their beliefs.

Beyond politics, these insights matter for anyone trying to influence public opinion or consumer behaviour. CEOs, union leaders, association heads, and political managers should take note: a more segmented public demands more segmented engagement strategies. A union leader trying to mobilize support for a new round of bargaining might find that workers who share progressive economic views may still harbour conservative social sentiments. Pitching the union’s agenda solely as a fairness or redistributive project might miss the mark if cultural anxieties or identity-based hesitations aren’t acknowledged. Likewise, an association head working on immigration policy reform must understand that not all economically interventionist Canadians are comfortable with a rapidly changing cultural landscape. Tailored messaging that addresses both economic benefits and cultural stability will be more persuasive.

In consumer marketing, these nuances translate into understanding that progressive cultural values often pair with demands for socially responsible, climate-friendly products—but not always. And for some culturally progressive Canadians, the price point and product quality still matter more than the brand’s environmental claims. Conversely, culturally cautious but economically interventionist consumers might be willing to pay more for a Canadian-made product if it aligns with their desire for economic security and supporting local workers, but not if the branding leans too heavily into a narrative of cultural liberalism. The point is simple: understanding the values and worldview of the audience is as critical as knowing their demographic profile.

From a policy leadership perspective, consider how these findings can guide decision-making. Leaders in business and government who understand that Canadians aren’t rigid ideologues but rather complex individuals who blend economic and cultural imperatives can better anticipate public reactions. For instance, a CEO looking to introduce a new product line that emphasizes sustainable materials and fair labour practices will resonate strongly with Economic & Cultural Progressives. But if that same product line is marketed in a way that implies cultural elitism or disparages traditional Canadian values, it may alienate consumers from other segments who might have embraced its affordability or domestic sourcing. Nuance matters.

Similarly, a government relations professional advocating for a policy on immigration reform should understand that while one segment might celebrate a more open-door approach based on cultural openness and economic dynamism, another might need assurance that integration programs are robust and that communities won’t lose their sense of identity. It’s not about appeasing xenophobia, but about recognizing genuine concerns and speaking to them with empathy and facts. The messaging must weave in economic arguments—better filling labour market gaps—and cultural assurances—supporting newcomers’ integration and preserving community cohesion—to persuade a broader coalition of voters and stakeholders.

In an era of rising populism, climate emergencies, housing crises, and ongoing debates about national identity, this segmentation also highlights a critical strategic insight: issues are never interpreted in isolation.

Take housing affordability—identified across the board as a top concern. How that problem is framed and what solutions are proposed will land differently depending on the audience’s cultural and economic predispositions. A policy that boosts supply and provides rent controls might excite Economic & Cultural Progressives, who see government intervention as necessary. But to win over Economic Progressives & Cultural Conservatives, the pitch might need to emphasize that helping Canadians afford homes isn’t about tearing down what makes communities unique, but about strengthening them. For Economic & Cultural Conservatives, messages that highlight how the private sector can be incentivized to build more homes—rather than government running the show—might be more compelling.

In our current political environment, with an election in the near future, leaders must also reckon with how shifting sentiments can reconfigure electoral coalitions. The Conservatives’ ability to make gains among economically progressive but culturally conservative voters, for instance, may herald a new style of centre-right populism that is still untested. The Liberals, having once dominated among mixed and progressive voters, must figure out how to re-engage skeptics who feel that promises have not materialized into tangible improvements. The NDP, enjoying support among Economic & Cultural Progressives, must consider how it can broaden its appeal without abandoning its core values. Political managers must build strategies that speak simultaneously to multiple dimensions—cultural, economic, security, global connectivity—and remember that one-size-fits-all pitches might fail.

Going beyond partisan politics, consider how these dynamics could influence public debates around immigration policy, climate legislation, or economic stimulus. When advocates craft proposals or messaging that resonates with only one cluster of values—say, emphasizing cultural diversity without acknowledging economic concerns, or focusing on job growth without addressing cultural anxieties—they lose credibility with large swaths of the public. Strategic communication must reflect the multi-dimensional nature of Canadian opinion. Leaders need to understand that reassurance and respect for tradition can coexist with progressive reforms, and that emphasizing economic fairness can win over those who might be culturally hesitant if done with sensitivity.

Looking at the big picture, what does this tell us about the future of Canadian politics and public engagement?

We often assume that Canadians are naturally inclined towards progressive values, but the data suggest a more complex reality. Far from uniformly progressive, Canadians show a readiness to accept state intervention on economic issues—demanding robust public services, redistribution, and affordability measures—yet remain more cautious and tradition-minded when it comes to cultural change. This tension means that appealing solely to one axis of the ideological spectrum is unlikely to win stable support.

As Canada edges closer to another federal election cycle, no party can depend on a fixed ideological foundation. Successful leaders will be those with the agility to reconcile these competing impulses—crafting messages and policies that speak to a desire for economic fairness while also acknowledging Canadians’ attachments to familiar cultural norms and national traditions. Explaining why climate action reinforces core Canadian values, or showing that new immigration policies can strengthen rather than dilute the country’s social fabric, becomes crucial. Addressing the cost of living crisis isn’t just about policy details; it’s about framing solutions in a way that resonates with both people’s need for material security and their longing for continuity and stability.

For CEOs, union leaders, association heads, political managers, and advocates, the lesson is equally clear. The old playbook of assuming Canadians will lean inevitably toward a certain “progressive” direction, and shaping all messages around that assumption, is no longer reliable. Instead, it’s critical to engage more deeply with the interplay of economic and cultural factors. Those who fail to grasp the nuances—who ignore the cultural undercurrents while pressing a single-minded agenda—risk alienating large swaths of the public and scratching their heads at lacklustre results. By acknowledging that many Canadians want government intervention in the economy but still yearn for cultural reassurance, leaders can craft strategies that resonate more powerfully with real lives.

In an environment defined by persistent affordability struggles, shifting demographic realities, global uncertainties, and climate anxiety, the electorate will continue to defy neat categorization. Policymakers who affirm both economic fairness and cultural continuity will find themselves better positioned to connect with voters. Those who assume a straightforward tilt toward progressivism or conservatism will be caught off guard by this more textured public mood.

In the end, the fundamental takeaway is that Canada’s ideological kaleidoscope can’t be captured by a single label. Leaders who adopt this broader lens—appreciating that Canadians can be economically progressive yet culturally hesitant—stand a better chance of building trust, advancing policy goals, and adapting effectively to the evolving demands of our political landscape. Those who don’t will find themselves perplexed by the electorate’s responses, struggling to understand why their carefully crafted appeals no longer seem to resonate the way they once did.

My team at Abacus Data is here to help.

Let’s discuss how our priopriatary segmentation can be put to work for you to better understand and connect with your audiences and identify their unmet needs.

ABOUT ABACUS DATA

We are Canada’s most sought-after, influential, and impactful polling and market research firm. We are hired by many of North America’s most respected and influential brands and organizations.

We use the latest technology, sound science, and deep experience to generate top-flight research-based advice to our clients. We offer global research capacity with a strong focus on customer service, attention to detail, and exceptional value.

And we are growing throughout all parts of Canada and the United States and have capacity for new clients who want high quality research insights with enlightened hospitality.

Our record speaks for itself: we were one of the most accurate pollsters conducting research during the 2021 Canadian election following up on our outstanding record in the 2019, 2015, and 2011 federal elections.

Contact us with any questions.

Find out more about how we can help your organization by downloading our corporate profile and service offering.