Scott Stinson: Pierre Poilievre and the 'revert to save' button
The Tory leader gets to go on the attack again. How did that work out last time?
By: Scott Stinson
If you were on the socials at all this week, and, honestly, all the credit to you if you were not, you would no doubt have seen the clip from Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Ottawa announcement of the temporary suspension of the federal excise tax on fuel.
During the question-and-answer session, a reporter began by remarking that Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre had recently said in an interview that Carney was “badly educated in economics.”
Carney interrupted to say, “he did?”. After a response in the affirmative, Carney said, “Wow.” Then he made a bemused face, and jokingly said he wanted to retract a compliment he had given to Poilievre earlier.
And, well, the internet was off. What grace and humility the prime minister had shown! What foolishness from the leader of the opposition!
Things of that nature.
Of course, one’s opinion of both Poilievre’s jab and Carney’s response to it depends very much on how you viewed both men to begin with. If you enjoy the pugnaciousness in the face of Liberal rule that helped propel Poilievre to the Tory leadership, then you probably don’t mind that he’s poking fingers in the PM’s eye, even if that particular dig was a weird one. (There are many sound ways to criticize Carney; I’m not convinced implying that Harvard and Oxford are diploma mills is among them.) If you were predisposed to think that Canada was lucky to have Carney in place in These Uncertain Times, then you likely thought his little riposte was charming.
Mostly, I think it was just a sign that Poilievre is returning to his preferred state: spiky.
One of the striking things of the coverage of Monday’s byelections was how many pundits and analysts suggested that the result, handing Carney and the Liberals a parliamentary majority that gives them control of the House and its committees and clear sailing until 2029, was, actually, a good thing for Poilievre.
I get the argument: He can focus on opposing Carney now, instead of having to complain while also avoiding triggering an election. He also gets more time for the Carney shine to wear off, and for Canadians to remember why they were so eager to toss the Liberals from office 18 months ago. There also won’t be a Trump in the White House (probably?) when this country next goes to the polls.
But what evidence do we have that Poilievre will make use of that time? If there were lessons learned by last year’s electoral defeat, it appeared that they were that the Conservative leader needed to present a more moderate side in public — not necessarily in policy, but in vibes — and to spend less time talking like a right-wing YouTuber. And Poilievre had done some of that stuff, effectively, in recent months. (Not, admittedly, that it was helping him in the polls.)
But now that Carney has secured his majority through a combination of floor-crossers and byelection holds, there’s less of a case for Poilievre to make nice. Which means more of the personality that did not exactly endear him to voters last time around.
Two more things: This time that Poilievre is now afforded, without the threat of a potentially disastrous general election looming, is also time for the Conservative party to reconsider the leadership he is providing. One of the reasons he survived last year’s clunker is that there was no alternative in waiting, especially if a vote was coming sooner than later. But now there is plenty of runway for anti-Poilievre forces to gather around either a sitting MP or an outsider. Tim Houston! Doug Ford! Ben Mulroney! One of the other Mulroneys!
There is a more immediate concern, too: the recent defection of MP Marilyn Gladu, from waaaaaaaay over on the Conservatives’ right flank to the Liberals, was followed by rumblings that several more Tory members were considering a similar dash across the House of Commons.
This could all be bunk, of course. Mischievous Liberal sources have nothing to lose by telling reporters that they are in deep discussions with yet more would-be floor-crossers. If no further defections materialize, that doesn’t disprove that talks didn’t happen. And if someone else does jump, that further erodes Poilievre’s position.
Taking a step back from the events of this week, consider what has happened since the general election: Carney fell just short of a majority, but Poilievre, having blown a huge lead, couldn’t even hold his own seat. Still, he won a byelection to get back in the House, and sailed through a leadership review at the start of the year. That business done, the Liberals went ahead and enticed enough floor-crossers to get their majority.
Do I think that the Liberals were conspiratorial enough to wait until Poilievre’s leadership was confirmed before welcoming so many party switchers? No. I mean, maybe? But probably not. I think.
But looking at the state of things now, it does kind of look like things couldn’t have worked out better for Team Carney, even if they didn’t actually try to draw it up that way.
The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work, have already subscribed, and still worry about what will happen when the conventional media finishes collapsing, please make a donation today. Please note: a donation is not a subscription, and will not grant access to paywalled content. It’s just a way of thanking us for what we do. If you’re looking to subscribe and get full access, it’s that other blue button!
The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Please follow us on social media! Facebook x 2: On The Line Podcast here, and The Line Podcast here. Instagram. Also: TikTok. BlueSky. LinkedIn. Matt’s Twitter. The Line’s Twitter.Jen’s Twitter. Contact us by email: lineeditor@protonmail.com
One leader just bribed his way to a majority. The press stood by and did nothing, or lectured us about how this was all totally normal and acceptable.
The other leader dared question the economic wizardry of his Harvard and Oxford educated opponent who is running the largest deficit in history that didn't involve pandemic lockdowns. The press give him shit for it.
And when a leader makes a spikey comment, it helps to have a hint of substance behind it. It should reveal a legitimate issue or concern.
Criticizing Trudeau economic creds would sound good, and would have been accurate. Criticizing Carney on that sounds like flailing.