Pierre Poilievre has been witness to a lot of change over the 21 years he’s served as a member of Parliament. He proudly resisted most of it, whether it’s changes to our social norms and mores or changes to how we see our own country and its past. That helped him win the leadership of his party and build a seemingly insurmountable lead in the polls, and it surely reaffirmed his belief in the value of intellectual and ideological consistency.
But life has a funny way of turning our strengths into weaknesses, and often at the worst possible time. If Poilievre wants to win an election he probably never thought he could lose, he’s going to have to do more than just roll out some new slogans and riff on his disdain for the Liberals. Instead, after a political lifetime defined by a resistance to change, he’ll now have to find a way to embrace it — and fast.
That’s because the pugilistic and partisan personality that Poilievre has cultivated over the years isn’t fit for purpose in a moment where Canadians clearly crave unity and decency. According to the latest results from Angus Reid that give Mark Carney’s Liberals an eight-point lead, Poilievre’s net favourability rating is a staggering negative 24.
It’s actually worse than that, given that there are more people who have a “very unfavourable” view of him (44 per cent) than those who have a “favourable” (18 per cent) or “very favourable” (17 per cent) view, suggesting his personal unpopularity could bleed down into individual ridings — a 180-degree change from a few months ago when candidates could have expected to ride his coattails to victory. His numbers are somehow getting worse, too, with almost three times as many respondents saying their opinion of him has worsened (37 per cent) rather than improved (13 per cent) over the last few weeks.
It would be difficult for any political leader to pull off a personality pivot in the midst of an election campaign. It might be impossible for Poilievre, who bragged about the durability of his political views and ideas during a January interview with MAGA philosopher Jordan Peterson. “Look back at everything I’ve done for my entire political career, to the time I was a teenager, and I’ve been saying precisely the same thing the entire time.”
He cited the winning essay he wrote as a 20 year old for Magna International’s “As Prime Minister….” contest, one in which he preached the virtues of smaller government and more personal freedom. “When I launched my leadership race, I literally had the same language in my leadership launch speech that I had put in that essay 22 or 23 years earlier,” he told Peterson. That essay hit on themes that Poilievre has pursued ever since, from the importance of reducing taxes to the belief that “a dollar left in the hands of consumers and investors is more productive than a dollar spent by a politician or bureaucrat.”
There may have been a time when Canadians were willing to countenance the idea of electing a prime minister whose intellectual development apparently ended when he was in university. But with the threat of Trumpism looming over everything and Canadian voters gravitating towards the adults in the political room, that time is clearly in the past. As political writer Paul Wells noted on his Substack, “I’ve changed my mind about most things since I was a child. This weekend Poilievre will apply for adult responsibilities. He’s spent years chasing adults away from him. It’s a problem.”
Poilievre will now have to confront that problem head-on, and within the hyper-pressurized environment of an election campaign no less. Can he actually grow and change in ways that extend beyond replacing his glasses and smiling more frequently, or is he the same person he’s always been — and will always be? Can he lose the bottomless reserves of contempt and hostility that have infused his political interventions and replace them with things like humility and generosity? Or to paraphrase one of his political heroes, Margaret Thatcher, is the gentleman simply not for turning?
One can’t help but wonder what the 20-year-old version of Pierre Poilievre would say to his modern self. If I had to guess, I’d suggest he would encourage his older counterpart to stick to his guns, remain true to his values, and refrain from anything that even remotely resembles a compromise. At this point, and after listening to his younger self for so long, I’m not sure he knows how to do anything else.
Comments
What an amazing article. Thank you Max Fawcett. Most people have known who pp is since the dark 9 years of Harper but for some unknown reason, once he somehow managed a landslide into the Leader of the Opposition he has escaped being confronted by all main stream media. It is like once he was elected leader he was their golden boy especially when you know all main stream media admitted their support for the Conservatives reformed even the Star who admitted they 'reluctantly' supported the Liberals.
Pp is finally exposing himself for the mean spirited little person he is and it is about time. You can't grow up in politics and relate to the real hard working, tax paying men and women who are trying to raise families, be homeowners, educate their children and stay healthy. No way. He is just not ready. He needs actual, real life experience and a government bubble, as we all know is not real life.
"somehow managed a landslide into leader"... we now know that "somehow" was foreign interference likely coordinated by Pierre's boss, Stephen Harper and his International Democracy Union puppet regimes.
You nailed it. Harper was ultimately rejected by voters once Trudeau the Younger was ready, in part for what one well known self described suburban conservative journalist in Metro Vancouver called a "constant simmering anger." The journo was honest and said his kids convinced him to vote Liberal in 2015 out of concern about climate change.
Poilievre carried on the tradition of patented Conservative simmering anger but accompanied by a lesser intellect than Harper, and dumped multitudes of blame onto Trudeau over the years, maybe only one or two actually sticking. You'd think Justin was responsible for bad coffee and potholes the way Poilievre spoke his name for every national failing. That helps explain Poilievre's current descent -- his main target disappeared; all his eggs were in Trudeau's basket -- and he does not have the intellectual capacity to accept change.
For the first time in years my family is really looking forward to voting for someone instead of voting strategically to keep someone else out of power.
It's about values.
I know, it's too good to be true, still holding our breath really.
The "simmering anger" is true; I have never been able to understand the appeal but I also read a good description of Harper's face resembling a "satiated badger."
I wouldn't give P.P. two cents worth of good advice.
Too many other important issues to delve into.
Poilièvre went to University; what did he graduate in?
Political science ... except the part about actual science didn't stick.
Slogan generator Pierre Poilievre, a career politician with ZERO real-world experience and close ties to his MAGA counterparts has come around and burned his own bridges down as a viable PM. Even his ties to the delusional Convoy crowd have come back to haunt him as well, the MAGA clowns who don't know the difference between Canadian law and USA law, plus our own Charter of Rights to the American Constitution. How frequent has this group been shown on video to spout non-Canadian laws to justify their actions in Canada. Worse yet, there are those who would be happy to become the 51st state. The Convoy crowd also had ZERO clue what is federal versus provincial matters and blamed Trudeau for everything, just like Poilievre.
Poilievre is so entrenched supporting MAGA nonsense, that no matter what he says, he will never distance himself from Trumpian ways and Trumpian playbook slogans.
Once Poilievre loses the election, will he end up stepping down like his last two predecessors, as the conservatives just lets history repeat itself repeatedly with failing political tactics.
One odd thing with Poilievre despite his excuse not to do so, is his refusal to get a security clearance. One can only surmise that Poilievre has skeletons in his closest that he is hiding from Canadians. Poilievre is unfit to lead a lemonade stand, let alone a country facing unwarranted tariffs from an unhinged Orange Sphincter.
Heartening that he's down in the polls, but its not because of that old ideology or his personality. It's 100% fear of Trump's naked and intense threats, and his association with Trump.
I have no idea why Carney is letting the topic of any day be GST or other taxes or subsidies. He should be on about Trump the way Giuliani had no topic but 9/11 in 2002. Nobody's even interested in a few percent taxes, when Trump is threatening 100% of the country.
Giuliani turned out to be 'just another bent politician' so referring to him in a positive way is not helpful at all. We need actual role models for the younger generations not 15 minute heroes that turn out to be 'not' heroes at all.
Hehehe.....Excellent article Max, so thrilled that yours is now so clearly a rhetorical question.
We also noticed the extra smiling/smirking.
By the end it should evolve into maniacal laughter as he leaves the stage, and not a moment too soon. Asshole.
Wish we had 'upticks' because yours comment is definitely one that would have many.
How does Poilievre square his avowed commitment to smaller government and leaving more dollars in the hands of consumers with "axe the tax"?
Consumer carbon pricing is the preferred market solution to climate change. Originally embraced by conservatives, including Preston Manning. The carbon price correctly internalizes the health, environmental, and climate costs of fossil fuels, per free market principles. Critically, the carbon price does not dictate the response, leaving market decisions to consumers and producers. Carbon pricing is the most efficient climate solution, with the price immediately visible to consumers. Other climate policies reduce less emissions at higher cost — and keep those costs hidden, reducing the incentive to change.
The carbon fee plus dividend (carbon levy + rebate) actually put more dollars into the hands of most consumers, leaving them better off. Only the most energy-extravagant households pay a net price.
Not only is Poilievre implacably opposed to carbon pricing, but his attacks were completely dishonest and disreputable. Falsely blaming carbon pricing for inflation. Did he ever mention rebates even once?
Not content with killing off the consumer carbon price, Poilievre set his sights on the industrial version:
"Alberta pioneered industrial carbon pricing. Now, Poilievre says he'd kill the federal mandate for it" (CBC, Mar 18, 2025)
As part of his announcement Monday, Poilievre also promised to expand eligibility for existing federal tax credits to "reward heavy industries who make products with lower emissions than the world average."
He said his government's approach would be "carrot, not stick."
But removing the carbon-price stick in favour of a larger tax-credit carrot also means taxpayers would cover more of the cost of that carrot, said Chris Severson-Baker, executive director of the Pembina Institute, a clean energy think-tank.
"This proposal really is to shift from a polluter-pays system … to taxpayer-pay system," he said.
"It would be shifting entirely to a system of subsidies, rather than a mix of incentives to reduce emissions, combined with incentives to invest."
Poilievre's proposal would be less effective, and shift the cost from consumers to taxpayers, blunting its effectiveness. Ending the levy plus rebate does most consumers no favor. Shifting the costs to taxpayers for less effective policy does taxpayers no favor.
Taxpayers are consumers, are they not? The same pair of pants, just different pockets.
The pseudo-conservatism Poilievre espouses harms the poor, rewards the rich, boosts corporate subsidies and profits, pats energy hogs on the back, eschews personal responsibility, and ravages the environment.
Perfectly in sync with the pumpkin-head occupying the White House.
No thanks.
Indeed, the death of the consumer carbon tax was essentially predicated on the wilful misinformation and disinformation spread by Pierre Poilievre and the CPC. The withholding of critically important, relevant information like not mentioning the rebates that left 80% of Canadian households further ahead (as per the PBO) and GROSSLY over-inflating the minuscule amount that the consumer carbon tax contributed to inflation, is shamefully misleading and irresponsible. Of course, including this FACTUAL VERIFIABLE INFORMATION would have blown Poilievre’s shameful manipulation of the truth right out of the water! In my opinion, withholding relevant information constitutes a lie as withholding relevant information is not, conversely, the truth.
Pierre Poilievre is now trying to apply the same “truths” (not) to the industrial carbon tax. Why? Because he is the leader of a party (CPC) that refuses to accept and/or acknowledge that the climate change crisis is real, even scientists around the world have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it is in fact real. The CPC’s insistence on removing all carbon levies is nothing more than a nod to the O&G industry, and other major industrial polluters, because of the copious amounts of money these industries shovel into the CPC’s (and the UCP’s) coffers . It’s the old adage: “you scratch my back and I will scratch yours!”
By recycling 100% of fuel charges back to the province of origin, Ottawa kept the consumer carbon price program revenue neutral. The government did not keep a cent, apart from GST.
Previous commenters have analyzed your most recent article, Max, so no need for me to do so. What I can say is that every time I read one of your superb articles, I think you just can’t do any better! And yet, you just keeping that very thing!
Keep on exceeding my expectations!