Canada’s federal Conservatives are stuck with a dilemma as they consider whether to do anything different in the next two years than they did in the last two.
At the centre of the dilemma are a host of riddles. As in, did they actually lose the last election? Sure, they didn’t win, but did they lose lose? Like, did Canadians actually reject them, or did something else happen that got in the way of the victory they anticipated?
If they did lose, what do they do about it? And if they didn’t lose lose, what do they do about that?
Depending on the answers to those questions is another of equal weight: do they head into the future with the same team of decision-makers who didn’t quite win if they maybe didn’t lose? And how do you answer that question when you don’t know what the future holds, given that one complaint against the current leader is that he didn’t respond effectively enough when the playing field changed?
As far as Pierre Poilievre is concerned, there’s nothing to decide. “We had the biggest vote count in our party’s history, the biggest increase in our party’s history, the biggest vote share since 1988 and we’re going to continue to work to get over the finish line,” he replied when asked. That same argument is on offer from other Conservatives keen on moving past the vote that left them once again in second place.
The “nothing to see here” case goes like this: In any previous election dating back 40 years the Tory results would have put them in power, likely with a majority. The fact this one didn’t was the result of unprecedented exterior factors, specifically, the timing of Justin Trudeau’s departure and the coinciding emergence of a U.S. president even his most fervent detractors didn’t foresee as being quite this nuts. Alarmed and unnerved, voters opted for continuity and incumbency over the very real practical policies they’d been firmly embracing until then.
It’s not a bad argument, but also not entirely convincing. In the Liberal bastion of greater Toronto, it sounds a lot like the local NHL team’s annual excuses for once again failing to deliver the goods. “Hey, at least we did better than our last collapse,” doesn’t quite cut it.
To its credit, the conservative universe isn’t ready to simply roll over and accept the excuses. In this the party shows itself once again to be more independent-minded than the rival Liberals, who — after refusing to give themselves the power to oust Justin Trudeau, and living to regret the fact — made the same
over his replacement. A majority of the caucus voted not to accept the rules of the Reform Act, meaning Prime Minister Mark Carney knows he can rule as he sees fit, safe in the knowledge the minions can’t get rid of him. Would any other party in the democratic world vote to remain minions?
Conservatives not only adopted the Reform rules, but are discussing whether Poilievre should face a leadership review. A decision could be made as early as this month, with a
to take place next spring. It’s possible they’ll reject the option, but it would be a mistake. The world a year from now may look a lot different than it does today. Given the level of international uncertainty and the daily madhouse in Washington, it would be a shock if it didn’t. Locking themselves into a recently-defeated leader when circumstances could easily demand an entirely different set of calculations would not be a show of confidence but an act of denial.
Poilievre has shown himself to possess certain definite gifts, but also a ready supply of flaws. He’s identified by defenders as a master communicator, certainly better at reaching ordinary Canadians than either Erin O’Toole or Andrew Scheer, his two most recent predecessors. The vote results show as much, particularly the
gains in Ontario and British Columbia at Liberal and NDP expense. He knows his mind, he speaks with conviction, he argues convincingly of the need for change.
He also alienates large numbers of people. His personality grates. He comes across as cocksure rather than leaderly. We’re told that Mark Carney “doesn’t suffer fools gladly” but thus far appears able to keep it from annoying the public. Poilievre, in contrast, can be openly rude and dismissive where everyone can see it, and quickly does thanks to social media. He’s a communicator who doesn’t get along with the communications business, who doesn’t let them on his plane, who pens off the people who one way or another will transmit their impressions to millions of Canadians.
He’s similarly weak at wooing allies he’d need if he ever got the chance to act on his agenda. He doesn’t talk to premiers he doesn’t like. He appears to remain committed to key strategist and enforcer Jenni Byrne, whose ability to make enemies is legendary and whose treatment of the Conservative caucus evokes thoughts of the Commanders’ approach to women in Margaret Atwood’s dystopian Gilead. Indeed, whether or not Byrne keeps her job will be a telling sign of whether Poilievre’s support for change includes change on his own behalf.
The presiding argument for retaining Poilievre as leader is that there’s no obvious alternative at the moment. That’s not a good place to be. An organization that seeks to govern the affairs of a serious country should be able to muster more than a single leadership option, and it should be any leader’s responsibility to see that there’s talent in the ranks.
Having failed to react successfully to changed circumstances in the latest election, Conservatives need time to better prepare for the next one. Poilievre’s performance over the next 10-12 months will be critical in assessing his suitability to lead those preparations. He should be given time to prove himself pending a formal review at a party gathering next spring. Requiring as much isn’t a knock on Poilievre but would reflect a party set on deciding its own future.
National Post
