What strikes me reading your article is that the politicians may think Carney is being successful even as the public is quickly souring on him.
I think that’s what Polievre needs to actually pay attention to. If he read the room and saw public opinion turning against Carney, and started acting like a government in waiting with real solutions rather than slogans, things would change mighty fast. He wouldn’t have defectors and he’d be more effective as opposition too. Maybe someone should give the conservatives that pro tip - it’s here free in the comments section.
I like your pro-tip and think you’ve also identified a key weakness of the Conservative leader. He can act like a future Prime Minister and the leader of a future government in waiting. He just can’t do it consistently.
I agree. Off all the strange things that have happened to the CPC this year, perhaps the strangest has been its inability to attract talent. A ywsr ago, a Conservative government seemed like a sure thing. Why didn't that attract star candidates? The CPC would look like a government in waiting if had elected some big names
Do the Liberals have any “big” names or consequential types amongst the baggage and detritus they’ve somehow managed to unload on Canadians as leaders?
That's a good question. It's easy to leap to conclusions or even to hypotheses - "maybe Poillievre isn't good at the sort of outreach that is normally required to attract star candidates" - but for a party as well-placed as the Conservatives were to win that election, the lack of capable new faces in the party was interesting.
Another possibility to the 'Poillievre ain't so good at politics' hypothesis - maybe populism doesn't mesh well with star candidates...?
“…knocking a staffer aside with a door…” has already been walked back by d’Entremont and even CBC issued a correction. It became something like “almost” or “nearly”. Yes, reporters might try reporting,not whatever the hell else has been going on in this feeding frenzy that ignores the big deficit, big spending (not investing) budget and focuses on gossip.
What has Trump done in 6 months, vs. what has Carney done in 8? Chalk and Cheese. People vote for the party not the person. Chris was booed at a Remembrance Day Ceremony on the 11th, and he will get a rough ride for the rest of his life and may have to move to the GTA, where people of his ilk live (save and except the Gurney family and friends).
Where are all the top end Shadow Cabinet Conservative MPs? I can name two or three who routinely get on the media radar, but surely all these people need some media exposure (and training) because they will be the face of a Conservative government.
This is simple math. The public dislike for Poilievre is baked into the public DNA. That isn't going to change and Poilievre has no inclination to try to get better public favourability. It's 24/7 obnoxious napalm.
There seems to be growing buyers remorse about this "new" Liberal government as voters realize that it is just the same, dithering and big spending Trudeau administration with Trudeau away suntanning on sabbatical. The public needs to see that there's responsible people in the Conservative Caucus who could help restore our nation's credibility and economy before the Liberals flush it down the drain.
So, rather that electing PP and Cons into the government, the public will willingly let the Liberals flush nation's credibility and economy down the drain. As they have been letting them since 2015. Great prospects.
All because SOME people insist that "The public dislike for Poilievre is baked into the public DNA." This is just a shovel from the mountain of "Liberal" bullshit.
Poilievre lost the last election, and his unpopularity is pretty unequivocal in all the polling. That's the reality the Conservatives have to deal with, and the politically-savvy Liberals are going to do everything they can to push that lower. Figure out a way to solve the problem, or deny it and lose.
For me, the public that dislikes him immensely are those in Toronto, Quebec and Ottawa ridings. He is not the guy to save the country and never was. He was the guy Canada needed to get rid of Katy Perry's boyfriend. I don't think he was ever likeable and did himself great harm from the apple crunching incident on.
Hm. The apple crunching incident showed that he has what it takes to stand his ground against the "Liberal" and "progressive" journo hacks. The MSM journos have diligently earned themselves the skepticism, contempt and scorn with which more and more citizens see them.
And, this country cannot be saved in its current form. It may take some years yet before falling apart, but Canada is a dead country walking, poisoned over last decades by Laurentian corrupt oligarchy.
I love how the reaction to that clip was "OMG he's so dismissive!" when the questions were in complete bad faith, lazily accusing him of using the "Trump playbook" and trying to trip him up and make him look bad. Of course long term that didn't stop this from being the media narrative anyway.
Indeed! Now the Liberals and their subsidiZed media narrative has gone from insensitive to bully and, even more foolishly, non-Prime Ministerial and MAGA. I do believe they should all “look inside” themselves, as they’re coming from a “prior” that is based on Liberal ButterScotch and Pecksniffery.
Poilievre is in trouble because he hasn't engaged in any serious introspection about losing the election, and indeed seems to be insisting that nothing was actually his fault. He's been trying to imply it was a fluke, and the Liberals were somehow underhanded by failing to play along with his anti-Trudeau strategy while exploiting the opportunities of the moment. Meanwhile, the Carney Liberals should be presenting a target-rich environment and Poilievre has blown 6 months licking his wounds and sulking after losing his old seat in Ottawa. I suspect unless Carney manages to run himself into late Trudeau levels of unpopularity, Poilievre's schtick is never going to be as successful as it was in 2025 and he'll probably lose again by being even less popular than Carney and the Liberals.
So, Poilievre's steady consistency on principles, his closeness to ordinary people, his non-existent conflicts of interest, his drive for a well-functioning Canada are a "schtick".
While Carney profits by staling ideas and policies from Poilievre's "schtick".
No, it's his propensity for glib responses, partisan attacks, and monosyllabic slogans as a substitute for policies and criticism that are his schtick. They might play well with online right wing fans, but there's empirical evidence that it's not working with the general electorate he needs to win.
Ah, yes, "Canada Strong" and "Elbows Up" have so many more syllables than "Axe the Tax". What seems to escape you is that "Axe the Tax" is specific and has meaning; whereas the Liberal ones are ephemeral, meaningless ButterScotch.
Both of those Liberal slogans convey a bigger, broader vision than "axe the tax", and they're also a positive statement instead of a criticism. That's usually a pretty good starting point for a political platform: state your vision, then elaborate with policies. Did the Liberals do that? Not really. They still won.
On the other hand, "axe the tax" is narrow. It's not communicating much of a vision, and can easily be taken as negative. Above all, there's the political malpractice of *sticking to that slogan after the Liberals killed the consumer carbon tax that was the primary target.* For God's sake - I don't care *how much* Poilievre and the Conservatives fell in love with that idea or invested in constructing a campaign around it. They needed to accept it was obsolete and let it go. Stubbornly refusing to change wasn't the message the Conservatives needed to convey when the country was being buffeted by a series of crises.
Those Liberal slogans convey everything under the sun and nothing real. They form mental pictures, but there is no "vision" in either of them. (To wit: Diana Fox dancing with her elbows up in front of her and the PM falling in line with her lead. For God's sake, she doesn't even understand the meaning and origin of the term) They are typical Liberal gaseous, malleable, virtue-signalling jibberish. Also, Carney did not "kill" the consumer carbon tax. He reduced the amount to zero and increased the industrial carbon tax which gets passed down to consumers, but the consumer carbon tax and the legislation still exists. Do you not find it interesting how Carney reincarnates the "crises" PRN in order to keep Canadians hostile to Americans and sympathetic to his ButterScotch?
I'm not sure I've ever seen an example of where Poilievre has told a lie. This might actually be a problem for him. I think it's why he wasn't able to get on the "51st State Existential Threat" train during the election, because it was such obvious manufactured bullshit.
My prediction is that it's going to look like we are really close to having another election and then a handful of MP's are going to cross the floor at the last minute to put the Liberals over the top. Maximum drama, maximum attempt at damage to the Conservative leader. I think we now know what side the Liberals have come down on in whether they want Poilievre to stay or not, and they want him gone.
Does Poilievre survive that scenario? I'd put it at uncertain but greater than 50/50. I think at that point hard core Conservatives will consider it akin to an unlawful seizure of power and become single-mindedly fixated on revenge. Not just attaining power, but using it to eventually punish those who clung to government through a manipulative and undemocratic bag of tricks. Audit all the Covid money, declassify all the documents, exclude anyone affiliated with the LPC from public life, appoint frothingly far right judges, burn Trudeau and Carney's legacy to the ground with one ten thousand page omnibus bill and casual use of the notwithstanding clause. Poilievre could be seen - positively - as the guy who won't forgive and forget. And he still has the base on board far more than centrist columnists in the major papers seem to acknowledge, and that's who is voting in the leadership review.
It's no secret that the Red Tory faction has never liked Poilievre and now they have all the excuses they need to try to toss him. A lot of this requires revisionist history about how well he did in the last election. Somehow losing by 2% while attaining party record vote share in an election where every external circumstance favoured his opponent is proof he is "unelectable". But argue this they do. Does this faction prevail even in a "stolen majority" scenario? I don't know.
We are going to have to see how the next few weeks play out. If like 15 CPC MP's cross the floor that will be different than if it's 1 or 2. A razor thin majority is probably about as fragile as a strong minority and might not change much. Either way, I'm not sure if the Liberals have thought through the long term implications of doing this. I suspect that nothing good will come of this (as far as I know) unprecedented move. We are in very unpredictable territory.
The Conservatives were up by +25 before the Liberals switched leaders. Fundamentally, the only thing the Liberals changed was the guy at the top of ticket, and Poilievre failed to take down a political neophyte at the head of a tired, inept government. Even worse, Poilievre let the Liberals exploit the anti-Trump sentiment because he apparently couldn't bring himself to engage in full-throated condemnation of Trump himself. Afraid of Maple MAGA in his own party ranks, or sympathetic to Trump? Either way, he was at odds with the public mood and blew it.
That's a good summary of the Red Tory arguments for tossing Poilievre.
And ensuring two years of total chaos during which time the Liberals will run the country with impunity, and no clear idea who will replace him. However I can guarantee you that new leader, no matter who it is, will also be considered "unacceptable" by the media and disliked by at least one large faction of the party.
That sounds like a pretty desirable move if I were a Liberal. Bonus points for using "Maple MAGA".
Or maybe, just maybe Poilievre could put on his big boy pants, do an honest post-mortem of the election outcome, identify the shortcomings of the last campaign, and do the work needed to fix them and defeat the *Carney* Liberals instead of Trudeau. If Poilievre is incapable of that, then the Conservatives *are* going to be faced with the prospect of continued losses with Poilievre or the chaos of changing leaders. I think this is also a Blue Tory criticism of Poilievre, because his Very Online crowd isn't actually particularly small-c conservative either.
I'd also like to see the same election done over when the entire country isn't in an irrational moral panic about getting invaded by Evil MAGA Republicans from Beneath the Hollow Earth.
100 upvotes to this solid comment, seeing and saying exactly how it is. Esp. "those who clung to government through a manipulative and undemocratic bag of tricks. "
The "Liberal" party, the Potemkin Village political front for Laurentian corrupt oligarchs.
Until the CPC admits to itself that PP is unelectable as PM they will continue this floundering about and Carney will be gifted a Chretien-like tenure in Ottawa be default rather than by merit.
I voted for the Conservative Party in the last Federal Election, however, the decision was not easy. I recognized the need for change and I did like my local Conservative candidate (who lost by a wide margin) but I was conflicted due to my general dislike of Poilievre. In speaking with many of my neighbours and work colleagues, the majority all have the same things to say about him. Noting that I am in an Ontario suburban riding.
Those who dislike Pierre Poilievre around here, point to his combative and polarizing style. His speeches and slogans — such as “Axe the Tax” and “Canada is broken” — appeal strongly to frustrated voters but come across to others as overly negative or divisive. They argue that he often frames issues in black-and-white terms, relying more on rhetoric than on detailed policy explanations. This tone, combined with his frequent attacks on opponents and institutions like the CBC or the Bank of Canada, has led some to see him as confrontational and overly partisan rather than constructive or unifying.
Others objected strongly to what they view as a populist and simplistic approach to complex problems. While Poilievre’s focus on affordability and government accountability resonates with his base, detractors say he tends to exploit public anger rather than offer pragmatic solutions. His past support for protest movements such as the Freedom Convoy and his criticism of traditional institutions raise concerns about how he would govern in a pluralistic democracy. To many, these factors — a divisive tone, limited policy depth, and an anti-establishment posture — make him appear more suited to opposition politics than to leading a country that values moderation and compromise.
Overall, certainly from Ontario and East, there is a longing for a "Progressive" Conservative Party rather than the party that the Reform Party hijacked and inevitably made their own.
The major infrastructure projects to be announced today will exclude Alberta. The first step in cratering the Canada Forever plebiscite.
The real story isn't that Dr. Carney or Mr. Poilievre have a problem, it is the continued Balkanisation of the already divided Confederacy. Let's have more easterners cross the floor. Eventually the dozy, Alberta federalists will get the message. Keep up the good work!
Seems to me that the "harassment" of Conservative MPs is coming from within the house: their own base is rabidly going after anyone with even a hint of disloyalty. To the point that d’Entremont now needs a 24/7 security detail, due to all the death threats.
So the Canadian taxpayer is now footing the bill for protecting a politician who is only doing what comes naturally- looking after number one. Give him a carry permit like the laws provide for and turn him loose. He’ll still be safer than thousands of Canadian women, gays, and Jews.
I have reluctantly concluded that the CPC needs new leadership. Poilievre correctly identified issues such as affordability that drive voters, and communicates effectively. His primary shortcoming is that he only superficially united the warring factions. Harper United the party by ejecting a small number of extremists and projecting overwhelming competence. Poilievre relied on a combination of a reasonable path to victory and intimidation. While leadership churn will set the party back in terms of election preparedness, the CPC can only win if it is absolutely united around a leader. Unfortunately, that leader is nowhere in sight.
Really am not buying that PP is in trouble. I don't have any reason to doubt the reporting that there are 10-15 people in his caucus who aren't happy that he's leader, but that is par for the course in both big tent federal parties at most times. It's just that we're hearing about it publicly right now. This really does seem to be overblown by the media bubble. If anything, it's surprising that the Liberals haven't found 3-5 floor-crossers considering the incentives in such a close Parliament.
What strikes me reading your article is that the politicians may think Carney is being successful even as the public is quickly souring on him.
I think that’s what Polievre needs to actually pay attention to. If he read the room and saw public opinion turning against Carney, and started acting like a government in waiting with real solutions rather than slogans, things would change mighty fast. He wouldn’t have defectors and he’d be more effective as opposition too. Maybe someone should give the conservatives that pro tip - it’s here free in the comments section.
I like your pro-tip and think you’ve also identified a key weakness of the Conservative leader. He can act like a future Prime Minister and the leader of a future government in waiting. He just can’t do it consistently.
I agree. Off all the strange things that have happened to the CPC this year, perhaps the strangest has been its inability to attract talent. A ywsr ago, a Conservative government seemed like a sure thing. Why didn't that attract star candidates? The CPC would look like a government in waiting if had elected some big names
Do the Liberals have any “big” names or consequential types amongst the baggage and detritus they’ve somehow managed to unload on Canadians as leaders?
That's a good question. It's easy to leap to conclusions or even to hypotheses - "maybe Poillievre isn't good at the sort of outreach that is normally required to attract star candidates" - but for a party as well-placed as the Conservatives were to win that election, the lack of capable new faces in the party was interesting.
Another possibility to the 'Poillievre ain't so good at politics' hypothesis - maybe populism doesn't mesh well with star candidates...?
“…knocking a staffer aside with a door…” has already been walked back by d’Entremont and even CBC issued a correction. It became something like “almost” or “nearly”. Yes, reporters might try reporting,not whatever the hell else has been going on in this feeding frenzy that ignores the big deficit, big spending (not investing) budget and focuses on gossip.
What has Trump done in 6 months, vs. what has Carney done in 8? Chalk and Cheese. People vote for the party not the person. Chris was booed at a Remembrance Day Ceremony on the 11th, and he will get a rough ride for the rest of his life and may have to move to the GTA, where people of his ilk live (save and except the Gurney family and friends).
Where are all the top end Shadow Cabinet Conservative MPs? I can name two or three who routinely get on the media radar, but surely all these people need some media exposure (and training) because they will be the face of a Conservative government.
This is simple math. The public dislike for Poilievre is baked into the public DNA. That isn't going to change and Poilievre has no inclination to try to get better public favourability. It's 24/7 obnoxious napalm.
There seems to be growing buyers remorse about this "new" Liberal government as voters realize that it is just the same, dithering and big spending Trudeau administration with Trudeau away suntanning on sabbatical. The public needs to see that there's responsible people in the Conservative Caucus who could help restore our nation's credibility and economy before the Liberals flush it down the drain.
So, rather that electing PP and Cons into the government, the public will willingly let the Liberals flush nation's credibility and economy down the drain. As they have been letting them since 2015. Great prospects.
All because SOME people insist that "The public dislike for Poilievre is baked into the public DNA." This is just a shovel from the mountain of "Liberal" bullshit.
Poilievre lost the last election, and his unpopularity is pretty unequivocal in all the polling. That's the reality the Conservatives have to deal with, and the politically-savvy Liberals are going to do everything they can to push that lower. Figure out a way to solve the problem, or deny it and lose.
For me, the public that dislikes him immensely are those in Toronto, Quebec and Ottawa ridings. He is not the guy to save the country and never was. He was the guy Canada needed to get rid of Katy Perry's boyfriend. I don't think he was ever likeable and did himself great harm from the apple crunching incident on.
Hm. The apple crunching incident showed that he has what it takes to stand his ground against the "Liberal" and "progressive" journo hacks. The MSM journos have diligently earned themselves the skepticism, contempt and scorn with which more and more citizens see them.
And, this country cannot be saved in its current form. It may take some years yet before falling apart, but Canada is a dead country walking, poisoned over last decades by Laurentian corrupt oligarchy.
I love how the reaction to that clip was "OMG he's so dismissive!" when the questions were in complete bad faith, lazily accusing him of using the "Trump playbook" and trying to trip him up and make him look bad. Of course long term that didn't stop this from being the media narrative anyway.
Indeed! Now the Liberals and their subsidiZed media narrative has gone from insensitive to bully and, even more foolishly, non-Prime Ministerial and MAGA. I do believe they should all “look inside” themselves, as they’re coming from a “prior” that is based on Liberal ButterScotch and Pecksniffery.
Poilievre is in trouble because he hasn't engaged in any serious introspection about losing the election, and indeed seems to be insisting that nothing was actually his fault. He's been trying to imply it was a fluke, and the Liberals were somehow underhanded by failing to play along with his anti-Trudeau strategy while exploiting the opportunities of the moment. Meanwhile, the Carney Liberals should be presenting a target-rich environment and Poilievre has blown 6 months licking his wounds and sulking after losing his old seat in Ottawa. I suspect unless Carney manages to run himself into late Trudeau levels of unpopularity, Poilievre's schtick is never going to be as successful as it was in 2025 and he'll probably lose again by being even less popular than Carney and the Liberals.
So, Poilievre's steady consistency on principles, his closeness to ordinary people, his non-existent conflicts of interest, his drive for a well-functioning Canada are a "schtick".
While Carney profits by staling ideas and policies from Poilievre's "schtick".
No, it's his propensity for glib responses, partisan attacks, and monosyllabic slogans as a substitute for policies and criticism that are his schtick. They might play well with online right wing fans, but there's empirical evidence that it's not working with the general electorate he needs to win.
Ah, yes, "Canada Strong" and "Elbows Up" have so many more syllables than "Axe the Tax". What seems to escape you is that "Axe the Tax" is specific and has meaning; whereas the Liberal ones are ephemeral, meaningless ButterScotch.
Both of those Liberal slogans convey a bigger, broader vision than "axe the tax", and they're also a positive statement instead of a criticism. That's usually a pretty good starting point for a political platform: state your vision, then elaborate with policies. Did the Liberals do that? Not really. They still won.
On the other hand, "axe the tax" is narrow. It's not communicating much of a vision, and can easily be taken as negative. Above all, there's the political malpractice of *sticking to that slogan after the Liberals killed the consumer carbon tax that was the primary target.* For God's sake - I don't care *how much* Poilievre and the Conservatives fell in love with that idea or invested in constructing a campaign around it. They needed to accept it was obsolete and let it go. Stubbornly refusing to change wasn't the message the Conservatives needed to convey when the country was being buffeted by a series of crises.
Those Liberal slogans convey everything under the sun and nothing real. They form mental pictures, but there is no "vision" in either of them. (To wit: Diana Fox dancing with her elbows up in front of her and the PM falling in line with her lead. For God's sake, she doesn't even understand the meaning and origin of the term) They are typical Liberal gaseous, malleable, virtue-signalling jibberish. Also, Carney did not "kill" the consumer carbon tax. He reduced the amount to zero and increased the industrial carbon tax which gets passed down to consumers, but the consumer carbon tax and the legislation still exists. Do you not find it interesting how Carney reincarnates the "crises" PRN in order to keep Canadians hostile to Americans and sympathetic to his ButterScotch?
I'm not sure I've ever seen an example of where Poilievre has told a lie. This might actually be a problem for him. I think it's why he wasn't able to get on the "51st State Existential Threat" train during the election, because it was such obvious manufactured bullshit.
My prediction is that it's going to look like we are really close to having another election and then a handful of MP's are going to cross the floor at the last minute to put the Liberals over the top. Maximum drama, maximum attempt at damage to the Conservative leader. I think we now know what side the Liberals have come down on in whether they want Poilievre to stay or not, and they want him gone.
Does Poilievre survive that scenario? I'd put it at uncertain but greater than 50/50. I think at that point hard core Conservatives will consider it akin to an unlawful seizure of power and become single-mindedly fixated on revenge. Not just attaining power, but using it to eventually punish those who clung to government through a manipulative and undemocratic bag of tricks. Audit all the Covid money, declassify all the documents, exclude anyone affiliated with the LPC from public life, appoint frothingly far right judges, burn Trudeau and Carney's legacy to the ground with one ten thousand page omnibus bill and casual use of the notwithstanding clause. Poilievre could be seen - positively - as the guy who won't forgive and forget. And he still has the base on board far more than centrist columnists in the major papers seem to acknowledge, and that's who is voting in the leadership review.
It's no secret that the Red Tory faction has never liked Poilievre and now they have all the excuses they need to try to toss him. A lot of this requires revisionist history about how well he did in the last election. Somehow losing by 2% while attaining party record vote share in an election where every external circumstance favoured his opponent is proof he is "unelectable". But argue this they do. Does this faction prevail even in a "stolen majority" scenario? I don't know.
We are going to have to see how the next few weeks play out. If like 15 CPC MP's cross the floor that will be different than if it's 1 or 2. A razor thin majority is probably about as fragile as a strong minority and might not change much. Either way, I'm not sure if the Liberals have thought through the long term implications of doing this. I suspect that nothing good will come of this (as far as I know) unprecedented move. We are in very unpredictable territory.
The Conservatives were up by +25 before the Liberals switched leaders. Fundamentally, the only thing the Liberals changed was the guy at the top of ticket, and Poilievre failed to take down a political neophyte at the head of a tired, inept government. Even worse, Poilievre let the Liberals exploit the anti-Trump sentiment because he apparently couldn't bring himself to engage in full-throated condemnation of Trump himself. Afraid of Maple MAGA in his own party ranks, or sympathetic to Trump? Either way, he was at odds with the public mood and blew it.
That's a good summary of the Red Tory arguments for tossing Poilievre.
And ensuring two years of total chaos during which time the Liberals will run the country with impunity, and no clear idea who will replace him. However I can guarantee you that new leader, no matter who it is, will also be considered "unacceptable" by the media and disliked by at least one large faction of the party.
That sounds like a pretty desirable move if I were a Liberal. Bonus points for using "Maple MAGA".
Or maybe, just maybe Poilievre could put on his big boy pants, do an honest post-mortem of the election outcome, identify the shortcomings of the last campaign, and do the work needed to fix them and defeat the *Carney* Liberals instead of Trudeau. If Poilievre is incapable of that, then the Conservatives *are* going to be faced with the prospect of continued losses with Poilievre or the chaos of changing leaders. I think this is also a Blue Tory criticism of Poilievre, because his Very Online crowd isn't actually particularly small-c conservative either.
There are changes I would like to see.
I'd also like to see the same election done over when the entire country isn't in an irrational moral panic about getting invaded by Evil MAGA Republicans from Beneath the Hollow Earth.
100 upvotes to this solid comment, seeing and saying exactly how it is. Esp. "those who clung to government through a manipulative and undemocratic bag of tricks. "
The "Liberal" party, the Potemkin Village political front for Laurentian corrupt oligarchs.
Until the CPC admits to itself that PP is unelectable as PM they will continue this floundering about and Carney will be gifted a Chretien-like tenure in Ottawa be default rather than by merit.
Wrong.
How so?
This assumes the party doesn't fall apart with internal divisions.
True enough😵💫
I voted for the Conservative Party in the last Federal Election, however, the decision was not easy. I recognized the need for change and I did like my local Conservative candidate (who lost by a wide margin) but I was conflicted due to my general dislike of Poilievre. In speaking with many of my neighbours and work colleagues, the majority all have the same things to say about him. Noting that I am in an Ontario suburban riding.
Those who dislike Pierre Poilievre around here, point to his combative and polarizing style. His speeches and slogans — such as “Axe the Tax” and “Canada is broken” — appeal strongly to frustrated voters but come across to others as overly negative or divisive. They argue that he often frames issues in black-and-white terms, relying more on rhetoric than on detailed policy explanations. This tone, combined with his frequent attacks on opponents and institutions like the CBC or the Bank of Canada, has led some to see him as confrontational and overly partisan rather than constructive or unifying.
Others objected strongly to what they view as a populist and simplistic approach to complex problems. While Poilievre’s focus on affordability and government accountability resonates with his base, detractors say he tends to exploit public anger rather than offer pragmatic solutions. His past support for protest movements such as the Freedom Convoy and his criticism of traditional institutions raise concerns about how he would govern in a pluralistic democracy. To many, these factors — a divisive tone, limited policy depth, and an anti-establishment posture — make him appear more suited to opposition politics than to leading a country that values moderation and compromise.
Overall, certainly from Ontario and East, there is a longing for a "Progressive" Conservative Party rather than the party that the Reform Party hijacked and inevitably made their own.
The major infrastructure projects to be announced today will exclude Alberta. The first step in cratering the Canada Forever plebiscite.
The real story isn't that Dr. Carney or Mr. Poilievre have a problem, it is the continued Balkanisation of the already divided Confederacy. Let's have more easterners cross the floor. Eventually the dozy, Alberta federalists will get the message. Keep up the good work!
Poilievre's in trouble ... but so is Carney.
Seems to me that the "harassment" of Conservative MPs is coming from within the house: their own base is rabidly going after anyone with even a hint of disloyalty. To the point that d’Entremont now needs a 24/7 security detail, due to all the death threats.
So the Canadian taxpayer is now footing the bill for protecting a politician who is only doing what comes naturally- looking after number one. Give him a carry permit like the laws provide for and turn him loose. He’ll still be safer than thousands of Canadian women, gays, and Jews.
That is potent. I like.
I have reluctantly concluded that the CPC needs new leadership. Poilievre correctly identified issues such as affordability that drive voters, and communicates effectively. His primary shortcoming is that he only superficially united the warring factions. Harper United the party by ejecting a small number of extremists and projecting overwhelming competence. Poilievre relied on a combination of a reasonable path to victory and intimidation. While leadership churn will set the party back in terms of election preparedness, the CPC can only win if it is absolutely united around a leader. Unfortunately, that leader is nowhere in sight.
Really am not buying that PP is in trouble. I don't have any reason to doubt the reporting that there are 10-15 people in his caucus who aren't happy that he's leader, but that is par for the course in both big tent federal parties at most times. It's just that we're hearing about it publicly right now. This really does seem to be overblown by the media bubble. If anything, it's surprising that the Liberals haven't found 3-5 floor-crossers considering the incentives in such a close Parliament.