Skip to main content

The case for the Conservatives to let Poilievre stay

The knives are already out for Pierre Poilievre following his historic defeat on Monday. But if the goal is to win in the next election, Conservatives might want to think twice about ditching him. Photo by Natasha Bulowski/Canada's National Observer

Keep climate a national priority — donate today

Goal: $150k
$51k

Just months ago, Pierre Poilievre was up over two-dozen points in the polls and heading for more than 200 seats in the House of Commons. We know the story of what happened next: In the midst of a failed election campaign that kept the Conservatives in opposition, 25 seats from power and seven points shy of the Liberals in the popular vote, Poilievre lost even his own riding.

The knives are out for Poilievre. Indeed, speculation about who might replace him began before election night: Nova Scotia premier Tim HoustonOntario premier Doug Ford? What’s Jason Kenney doing these days? Such speculation is easy. 

But if the goal is to win, the Conservatives ought to think twice about ditching him — a notion shared by leading Conservatives, including James Moore and Andrew Scheer, who have said he should stay. 

The case against Poilievre is easy to make: He lost, having squandered an unprecedented lead in short order. And while no one could have predicted the cascade of events that unfolded so quickly between November and April, the Conservatives were either unable or unwilling (or both) to adjust. The central campaign had been too imperious. The Tories had been too arrogant. Too smarmy. Too “Trumpy.” Too hostile to the press and anyone who disagrees with them. They were too obsessed with enforcing right-wing standards of purity. They indulged in dangerous, counterproductive, culture war politics that violated their ostensible commitment to individual rights. Poilievre was viewed unfavourably by many, especially compared to Mark Carney. The party had also been too harsh on Jagmeet (“sellout”) Singh and the NDP, driving supporters who’d have gone orange to choose red instead. 

It’s all true. But that’s not enough to put yet another leader out to pasture.

After both the 2019 and 2021 election losses, the Conservative Party knifed their leaders in fairly short order. In each case, the party had won more votes than the Liberals, but fewer seats. The struggles to replace each leader — Scheer and Erin O’Toole — represented as much an internal struggle over what the party should be as it did frustration with the losses. The current one will be no different.

Poilievre represents a right-wing libertarian Conservative tradition that espouses smaller government, lower spending and market fundamentalism. It’s a wretched program, but one that its adherents believe, ideologically, is right and good. Selling this program to Canadians, Poilievre won a higher share of the vote, 41 percent, than any Conservative since Brian Mulroney in 1988 — and the most seats for the party since 2011. 

Should the Conservatives stick with their defeated leader, they could forgo a brutal struggle of a leadership contest that would exacerbate the ideological rift within the party, writes David Moscrop

By historical and recent standards, it was a strong electoral outing for the Conservatives, if not a successful one. Now the party needs to regroup. Keeping Poilievre, who’ll need to win a seat, and soon, in a by-election, would allow them to continue to build a coherent movement around a well-known leader. It would mean holding on to a leader who was a tenacious and effective, if overly pugnacious, opponent of the government in the House, doing his job holding it to account and creating damaging political narratives — some of them even true — that stuck. 

Keeping Poilievre would allow the party to forgo a brutal struggle by way of a leadership contest that would threaten to tear the party apart along progressive and reformist lines — which has happened before. It would also leave them more election ready, which they may need to be sooner rather than later. The new minority parliament, under an untested leader and with a diminished partner, could run its course within a nasty, brutish, short — though average by historical standards — 18 months or so.

Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney is a man of tremendous capacity, a neophyte politician who’s learning fast on the job. He’s also facing a tall order as he must deal with the enduring Trump tariff threat, an ongoing affordability crisis, a not-so-hot economy that threatens to dip into recession, intransigent premiers, a simmering potential Alberta secessionist movement and the usual day-to-day challenges of governing Canada, not to mention the events, missteps and scandals that always arise during a ministry.

If he stays, Poilievre will have plenty of work to do and many amends to make. But a disciplined, chastened party may well be in a position of strength in a year or so, up against a Liberal Party that, by 2027, will have been in government for 12 years. Those who remember Canadian politics between 1993 and 2004 may recognize a potential parallel. They may also recognize that the last Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, was given a chance to fail before he ultimately succeeded. 

Perhaps the party might wish to give history a chance to repeat itself.

Comments