The unbearable lightness of being Pierre Poilievre
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s ‘challenge is to dispel the image of unbearable lightness and do the hard political spade work of retaining what he has and building further,’ writes Ken Polk. / TWITTER PHOTO
Hell hath no fury like a political party denied seemingly certain victory.
At the beginning of the summer, I wrote that the Conservatives were showing signs of having moved into the acceptance stage of grief over their stunning loss to Prime Minister Mark Carney in April 2025. Seems I jumped the gun.
I could say that piling on Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre has become something of a national sport this summer. But since most of the abuse is coming from within nominally Conservative ranks, I will settle on calling it that time-honoured harbinger of political success: the circular firing squad.
It’s the upheaval roiling a party that is looking for answers to why it lost, why it has plummeted in the polls since the election, and why it continues to shed MPs. Judging by the internal debate, coming to terms with the loss is still a work in progress.
Baring their online souls
I won't go into an exhaustive recitation of the finger-pointing. A quick survey of the highlights — or lowlights if you are Poilievre — will give you the gist and the direction.
Ben Woodfinden, former communications director to Poilievre, posted: “I'm more depressed about the state of conservative politics in Canada right now than I think I've ever been. I won't deny it.” In a later column, he stated, “Increasingly the thing that certifies you as properly conservative is not what you believe but how you perform. Are you angry enough? Bombastic enough, contemptuous of the right enemies, willing to say the outrageous thing? Temperament has become the loyalty test.”
Perhaps the most widely quoted article came from MP Michelle Rempel Garner who, among other remarkable things, claimed that there are activists within the Conservative movement who have “normalized familicide.”
More tellingly, she regurgitates an article of faith within Conservative ranks: that there is a comprehensive institutional Liberal bias that prevents the Conservative Party getting a fair shake come election time. The curative for which is a call for, among other things, “dozens of credible think tanks churning out public policy to counter the dogma of the Liberals … hundreds of credible independent media outlets to question the pro-Liberal spin of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation … singers, songwriters, fashion models, sports legends, scientists and poets to send cultural signals that make liars out of the Liberals’ apparatus, which presently broadcasts on repeat: we are cool, they are not.”
What is most astonishing from the almost 3,000-word article is that the words “Pierre” and “Poilievre” do not appear once, either singly or in combination.
And of course, as in all cases of political parties and leaders in trouble, there are the usual unnamed caucus suspects who willingly bare their souls to reporters that the leader just doesn’t have what it takes to win.
The undying Conservative fantasy of Liberal omnipotence
So what are we to make of all this? For some, the core of the problem seems to be the snide presentation of the party, which reflects Poilievre's default political mode. This suggests that the leader has to change his style and if he can’t he has to be replaced.
But this does not come to grips with the fact that the party rank and file are attached to Poilievre like glue, as shown by the 87% vote of confidence he received last January at the party’s post election convention. It begs the obvious follow-up question as to how displacing the clear standard bearer of the party base would, in fact, strengthen the party. It is also hard not to see this is, in a sense, an indictment of the party base, which, if prosecuted could portend a Conservative civil war. After all, changing your voter base is not like changing clothes, or your leaders.
Then there is the view that Conservatives never compete on a level playing field; one tilted in the Liberals’ favour by a deeply embedded, almost monolithic, Liberal “apparatus” that has been captured by Liberal “dogma.” In one sense, this feeling, which has resonated with the Conservative party rank and file and the hierarchy for generations, is understandable. The Conservatives have tended to lose elections. The Liberals have tended to win them.
The common characterization of the Liberal Party as Canada’s “natural governing party” is not merely a manifestation of Liberal arrogance. Paradoxically, the Conservatives seem to believe it themselves. How else to explain a collection of complaints and grievances captured, again, in the words of Rempell Garner: “The Liberals’ entire decision-making apparatus is focused around [winning]. They are ruthlessly intolerant and seek to politically eradicate anything or anyone that could derail their chances of winning, and they govern themselves accordingly.”
This is a truly intimidating notion which in turn has nurtured a political chip on the collective Conservative shoulder to the effect that the game is “rigged” against them from the beginning.
The problem is that it’s just not true. For example, I worked in the PMO of a highly successful prime minister and I can tell you that rare, indeed, was the working day when we did not feel that we were under unfair assault from the media. Indeed, the publisher of one national paper was so averse to Jean Chrétien that he is alleged to have told intimates that when he finished with my boss you would need an eye dropper to pick the pieces up.
To those Conservatives who believe that the Liberal Party is a precision machine tool of government, I offer the sponsorship scandal, the APEC inquiry, and an administrative nightmare that a gifted Conservative phrase maker referred to as the “Billion Dollar Boondoggle.”
Oh yes. Then there was the Chrétien-Paul Martin civil war which sucked the energy out of our government for a considerable length of time.
There is also the inconvenient fact that the Conservatives won three consecutive elections quite recently.
The voters are always right
The first principle of political success, apart from being able to count, is the humility to accept that the voters are always right. They are given a choice among party platforms and vote for the one that aligns most with their values, interests and priorities.
The 2025 election came down to voters’ judgment as to whether Carney or Poilievre was better suited to lead the country through a period of extraordinary economic and political peril. They chose Carney. This was understandably galling for a party that had led in the polls by substantial margins for the two years leading up to the campaign. Nonetheless, they lost.
In office, the prime minister has moved the Liberals into a dominant position on economic issues. That is not because of a biased Liberal mind hive. It is established fact. He has taken bold action to position Canada as the destination of choice for investment in pipelines, critical minerals and clean energy. He may also be on the verge of striking some kind of trade deal with President Donald Trump that may add to his political lustre; or, if the deal fails to live up to Carney’s “Elbows Up” rhetoric, will present political opportunity for a Conservative Party that is sorely in need of an issue they can sink their teeth into.
Far from being welcomed by an expectant “Liberal” bureaucracy, Carney has found it not fit for purpose on the big economic issues and has either legislated to get around it or brought in private sector outsiders to shake things up and get things done. The fact that he seems to have pilfered much of Poilievre’s platform may be another galling fact for Conservatives. But it is proof, if more is needed, that a conservative agenda can win, even if it is offered by a nominal Liberal.
Throwing the leader over the side will not address the composition of the current Conservative voter coalition. Nor would it make sense to magic up an ersatz conservative version of an imagined Liberal “Borg.” This supposes that Poilievre is an empty vessel. Just wheel him up to the Conservative ideas pump, fill him up and he will begin spouting the resonant slogans, a talent for which he remains truly nonpareil, by the way.
In both of these scenarios, Poilievre features as merely a bad-tempered lightweight. This public soul bearing by conservatives must be unbearable for him, just as his rhetoric seems to be unbearable for many of them. But it is the lot of a leader who loses. His challenge is to dispel the image of unbearable lightness and do the hard political spade work of retaining what he has and building further.
Things have changed. Poilievre and the party have to show that they can change with them. Only this will quiet the circular firing squad. Not toning down the rhetoric, or plotting to overthrow entrenched Liberal elites.
It may not be possible in the end. But what alternative does he have?
