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?
The Liberals did attract people like Frieland, Wilkinson and Morneau. Not saying they were effective in politics but they were known outside politics. All the CPC attracted was right wing talk show hosts like Jimani and Lawton
Look how well those 3 did. Arguably each had some achievements in office, some more than others but I’m not sure how well their stint in politics and government will have burnished their CV or image. Right now, I’m actually more surprised at how few power hitters Carney has been able to bring on board. Yes, he got Hodgson but that’s really it, unless you count Sabia, which I don’t.
Agreed, but high performers often have the confidence and hubris to give politics a try. Some are successful and some are not. That none aligned with the CPC is telling of the party's culture regardless if they would have ultimately turned into effective politicians. Most telling is the lack of high achieving business people who would naturally align with a notionally pro-business party
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.
An alternative to the 'Poillievre ain't so good at politics' hypothesis - maybe populism doesn't mesh well with star candidates...?
I think that is the root cause. Jason Kenney attracted some considerable talent to his inner circle: David Knight Legg and Howard Anglin. Neither lasted very long. Conservative parties need to bridge the gap between populism and expertise
“…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).
Yeah, because if there's one area of the country that has never voted Liberal, or put up with people crossing the floor to said Liberals, it's Nova Scotia.
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.
Michael Chong should be responding to Anita Anand in foreign affairs. Michelle Remper should be focused on immigration. There are several others, like Raquel Dancho Poilievre, who should be building a shadow cabinet that voters could imagine being part of a government in waiting.
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.
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?
If a CPC leader had done anything nearly as goofy as that "elbows up dance" - that didn't even appreciate an understanding of how the pose would actually look in a hockey context, which would be more horizontal - reporters would still be talking about it as an embarrassing gaffe.
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.
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.
The CPC won't admit it (especially the online partisans). Its a losing play but they won't admit it unfortunately. Partisan blindness is pretty bad these days nobody can really be objective about "their team" when it comes to online discussion.
Everyone has. peak. I think PPs was being the Opposition Leader attack dog as you say. Very good way to look at it. He was very good at that for many years but unfortunately has turned into a repetitive board of cliche and hyperbolic negative phrases.
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.
I hope you are correct but he's not the guy to close the deal. He should have run away with the election and he blew it. He's polling way below the rich banker guy. He is unrepentant and acts like an enormous butthead.
A rather peculiar way to show support of someone by calling them a “dick” and a “butthead”, referring to their “negativity”, “unlikability” “peddling…hostility”, etc. while appearing to include yourself with “conservative voters as well". What kind of support is that? Puts me in mind of the old expression, “With friends like you, who needs enemies?”
Well I guess you are upset by my observation. But yeah, he's a knob. Oh and I'm non partisan and have no obligations under any political party rules that needs me to cheer for them in the comments section. Because that's weird.
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.
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.
Oh I agree 100%. But they don’t. Not sure why. The reward system is one reason.- it seems to reward loyalty to the party rather than morality. The “ power flows down from the king to the unelected nobility/elite to the party” nature of the Canadian system is another. Any notion of power flowing from the people up is considered too American.
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!
There is no exclusion of Alberta, the poor me victim mentality is drying up. Getting a commitment for an oil pipeline takes time, and honestly, you all need to stop putting your hopes and dreams on "one more pipeline" as the answer to all problems. You got less than 100 years of the stuff left, its time to move up.
Pierre and the CPC will never get the benefit of the doubt in Central and Eastern Canada. It's a cultural thing and the CPC are the outsiders. That means that Pierre and the CPC need to outline how they would do the things they advocate, not just go against LPC/NDP/Laurentian policy.
On the subject of the apple incident, what is gained by being a dick? Help me understand how this approach is good for Canadians?
I agree, the legacy media is not trustworthy. Not too much in the 5ws these days department on legacy media. Non legacy media has zero journalistic standards and is typically partisanship in need of therapy because it's do often just someone on a rant.
Yes, the legacy media doesn't really like the Conservatives much, and Poilievre in particular, and it shows.
On the subject of Poilievre being dismissive - for me and many others, that should be expected with dealing with a supercharged partisan who enjoys the performance art of eating an apple and being a dick to someone, right? But for me, his approach has been to go negative all the time, every moment of the day. I'm sick of it. I suspect a lot of Canadians share this view and are conservative voters as well.
On the subject of Canada being a dead country, I disagree. Canada innovates, wins gold medals, gets the occasional Nobel, and is generally at peace with itself and its place in the world. Poilievre increased the vote share for the CPC in the last election ... an election that was in the bag despite Poilievre's unlikability .... however...
CPC should have won the election in April. They should have won the last three, so tell me because I would like to learn why Poilievre and his predecessors couldn't close the deal.
For me, two things happened IMHO: Somehow the ballot question became 'who is best to deal with Trump'. And, you know, that is #$%Q@ insane but it's what happened. Everyone knows he is a pussy grabbing convicted felon - that's ten year old news. Shouldn't the messaging have been different to get away from that ballot question. The second thing is Poilievre and his campaign team should have been peddling hope as opposed to hostility through the entire election.
I don't know about you, but I am weary of the turbo-charged partisanship and the anger. I'm tired of the petty crap. I'm sick of the unbalanced reporting on the CPC versus everyone else. (Why is any media talking to the NDP at all? They don't have party status, they might not even survive as a party.... so why the hell are they getting air time? For me, the press should be called out on that.
Agree wholeheartedly...and on your last point, in addition to the NDP being essentially irrelevant at this point, explain to me why Lizzy May and anyone involved with the Green Party are still being interviewed and quoted as if they are a serious party?
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.
The problem is that to truly satisfy both opinionated wings of the party the leader needs to simultaneously be a Red Tory and a dyed-in-the-wool-Alberta-has-been-screwed-over-and-deserves-the-moon-as-compensation Westerner. Oh, and not give a shit about right wing social issues while simultaneously caring deeply about them.
This is probably a tall order.
I think Poilievre's primary shortcoming is the same it's always been - he's a petty attack dog who'll spew forth any partisan shit in an ongoing quest to defeat the enemy, and he comes across as it. He doesn't know when to turn it off, and I suspect he's not really capable of doing so.
Also, he looks like Futurama Richard Nixon, and taking the glasses off emphasized that. Big mistake.
Another learning from Harper is the need to reach out to the Ontario PC party. Many of Harper's ministers came from the Harris government. Poilievre seems to have bad blood with Ford due to Jenni Byrne's bad experience with Ford
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?
The Liberals did attract people like Frieland, Wilkinson and Morneau. Not saying they were effective in politics but they were known outside politics. All the CPC attracted was right wing talk show hosts like Jimani and Lawton
Look how well those 3 did. Arguably each had some achievements in office, some more than others but I’m not sure how well their stint in politics and government will have burnished their CV or image. Right now, I’m actually more surprised at how few power hitters Carney has been able to bring on board. Yes, he got Hodgson but that’s really it, unless you count Sabia, which I don’t.
Agreed, but high performers often have the confidence and hubris to give politics a try. Some are successful and some are not. That none aligned with the CPC is telling of the party's culture regardless if they would have ultimately turned into effective politicians. Most telling is the lack of high achieving business people who would naturally align with a notionally pro-business party
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.
An alternative to the 'Poillievre ain't so good at politics' hypothesis - maybe populism doesn't mesh well with star candidates...?
I think that is the root cause. Jason Kenney attracted some considerable talent to his inner circle: David Knight Legg and Howard Anglin. Neither lasted very long. Conservative parties need to bridge the gap between populism and expertise
“…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).
The booing on Remembrance Day being utterly pathetic.
Yeah, because if there's one area of the country that has never voted Liberal, or put up with people crossing the floor to said Liberals, it's Nova Scotia.
As for what Trump has done in 9 months, he's destroyed the US Constitution, the rule of law, foreign alliances and the US economy.
lol no he hasnt.
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 did very well in interviews with Vassy Kapelos & Rosemary Barton.
He shouldn't be afraid to defend his policies in the legacy media.
This is a pretty good post, in my opinion.
I think the Conservatives have a much deeper bench, yet the Party leadership has failed to let the MPs off the leash.
I think your last line is on the mark.
The Conservatives need to do better in this area.
Michael Chong should be responding to Anita Anand in foreign affairs. Michelle Remper should be focused on immigration. There are several others, like Raquel Dancho Poilievre, who should be building a shadow cabinet that voters could imagine being part of a government in waiting.
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.
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?
If a CPC leader had done anything nearly as goofy as that "elbows up dance" - that didn't even appreciate an understanding of how the pose would actually look in a hockey context, which would be more horizontal - reporters would still be talking about it as an embarrassing gaffe.
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.
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😵💫
The CPC won't admit it (especially the online partisans). Its a losing play but they won't admit it unfortunately. Partisan blindness is pretty bad these days nobody can really be objective about "their team" when it comes to online discussion.
I am apolitical. Polievre is simply not PM material. He peaked as a Question Period attack dog.
Everyone has. peak. I think PPs was being the Opposition Leader attack dog as you say. Very good way to look at it. He was very good at that for many years but unfortunately has turned into a repetitive board of cliche and hyperbolic negative phrases.
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.
I hope you are correct but he's not the guy to close the deal. He should have run away with the election and he blew it. He's polling way below the rich banker guy. He is unrepentant and acts like an enormous butthead.
A rather peculiar way to show support of someone by calling them a “dick” and a “butthead”, referring to their “negativity”, “unlikability” “peddling…hostility”, etc. while appearing to include yourself with “conservative voters as well". What kind of support is that? Puts me in mind of the old expression, “With friends like you, who needs enemies?”
Well I guess you are upset by my observation. But yeah, he's a knob. Oh and I'm non partisan and have no obligations under any political party rules that needs me to cheer for them in the comments section. Because that's weird.
In the words of the arrogant, Pecksniffian Carney, Sean, “Look inside yourself…”
Have a good one!
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.
Yes, the evil MAGA Republicans lead by...the sitting president of the United States.
Was it stupid to genuinely worry about it? Maybe. Is pretending it was a made up thing accurate? No.
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.
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 would like politicians to look after Canadians rather than number one. What about you?
Oh I agree 100%. But they don’t. Not sure why. The reward system is one reason.- it seems to reward loyalty to the party rather than morality. The “ power flows down from the king to the unelected nobility/elite to the party” nature of the Canadian system is another. Any notion of power flowing from the people up is considered too American.
That is potent. I like.
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!
There is no exclusion of Alberta, the poor me victim mentality is drying up. Getting a commitment for an oil pipeline takes time, and honestly, you all need to stop putting your hopes and dreams on "one more pipeline" as the answer to all problems. You got less than 100 years of the stuff left, its time to move up.
Poilievre's in trouble ... but so is Carney.
Carney less so, I should think.
Pierre and the CPC will never get the benefit of the doubt in Central and Eastern Canada. It's a cultural thing and the CPC are the outsiders. That means that Pierre and the CPC need to outline how they would do the things they advocate, not just go against LPC/NDP/Laurentian policy.
I don't see that coming from them.
On the subject of the apple incident, what is gained by being a dick? Help me understand how this approach is good for Canadians?
I agree, the legacy media is not trustworthy. Not too much in the 5ws these days department on legacy media. Non legacy media has zero journalistic standards and is typically partisanship in need of therapy because it's do often just someone on a rant.
Yes, the legacy media doesn't really like the Conservatives much, and Poilievre in particular, and it shows.
On the subject of Poilievre being dismissive - for me and many others, that should be expected with dealing with a supercharged partisan who enjoys the performance art of eating an apple and being a dick to someone, right? But for me, his approach has been to go negative all the time, every moment of the day. I'm sick of it. I suspect a lot of Canadians share this view and are conservative voters as well.
On the subject of Canada being a dead country, I disagree. Canada innovates, wins gold medals, gets the occasional Nobel, and is generally at peace with itself and its place in the world. Poilievre increased the vote share for the CPC in the last election ... an election that was in the bag despite Poilievre's unlikability .... however...
CPC should have won the election in April. They should have won the last three, so tell me because I would like to learn why Poilievre and his predecessors couldn't close the deal.
For me, two things happened IMHO: Somehow the ballot question became 'who is best to deal with Trump'. And, you know, that is #$%Q@ insane but it's what happened. Everyone knows he is a pussy grabbing convicted felon - that's ten year old news. Shouldn't the messaging have been different to get away from that ballot question. The second thing is Poilievre and his campaign team should have been peddling hope as opposed to hostility through the entire election.
I don't know about you, but I am weary of the turbo-charged partisanship and the anger. I'm tired of the petty crap. I'm sick of the unbalanced reporting on the CPC versus everyone else. (Why is any media talking to the NDP at all? They don't have party status, they might not even survive as a party.... so why the hell are they getting air time? For me, the press should be called out on that.
Agree wholeheartedly...and on your last point, in addition to the NDP being essentially irrelevant at this point, explain to me why Lizzy May and anyone involved with the Green Party are still being interviewed and quoted as if they are a serious party?
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.
The problem is that to truly satisfy both opinionated wings of the party the leader needs to simultaneously be a Red Tory and a dyed-in-the-wool-Alberta-has-been-screwed-over-and-deserves-the-moon-as-compensation Westerner. Oh, and not give a shit about right wing social issues while simultaneously caring deeply about them.
This is probably a tall order.
I think Poilievre's primary shortcoming is the same it's always been - he's a petty attack dog who'll spew forth any partisan shit in an ongoing quest to defeat the enemy, and he comes across as it. He doesn't know when to turn it off, and I suspect he's not really capable of doing so.
Also, he looks like Futurama Richard Nixon, and taking the glasses off emphasized that. Big mistake.
Harper pulled it off
Barely. And it was notable even then how shallow the talent pool was he had to work with. When Tony Clement is a star times are dark.
The Harper Cabinet had:
Lisa Raitt
Jason Kenney
Jim Flaherty
James Moore
Another learning from Harper is the need to reach out to the Ontario PC party. Many of Harper's ministers came from the Harris government. Poilievre seems to have bad blood with Ford due to Jenni Byrne's bad experience with Ford
Needs to be someone from outside the partyni think.
Yeah probably