Shakespeare’s King Henry IV famously lamented “Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.“ Today in Canadian politics no one should pay more attention to this prediction than Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.
Contrary to what many of his supporters are saying, Poilievre is not going to have smooth sailing between now and next January, when the party will hold its constitutionally mandated leadership review. In fact, there are several indications that he could be in real trouble. Anything less than a resounding show of support by convention delegates could well spell the end of Poilievre’s time as leader, and the way things are going that level of support could be a moving target. Forget 60%, or even 75%. Will anything less than 80% be considered a win?
Some reasons for Poilievre’s potential downfall are obvious. This is, after all, the man whose party held a twenty-plus point lead over the governing Liberals for more than 18 months in the run up to the April 28th federal election. And then he blew it. We will never know if a different approach, and/or a different leader, could have defeated the Carney/Liberal juggernaut, but it is clear that the magnitude of the Conservative loss is the fault of Poilievre alone. His refusal to pivot from his original game plan, his insistence on pursuing wedge topics of little interest to the majority of voters and his dogged determination to listen to the advice of personal adviser Jenni Byrne, rather than to any other members of his election team, all combined to produce the biggest political upset of the century.
Poilievre’s argument that Conservatives should rejoice because the party’s popular support and seat count both increased rings hollow. There are many disgruntled caucus members who were measuring the drapes for ministerial offices and now find themselves back on the opposition benches yet again, for a third time in as many elections. And then of course there is the fact that he lost his own seat in Ottawa. Despite his efforts to blame federal public servants for this humiliation, most commentators have attributed his personal defeat to widespread public outrage over his enthusiastic support for the infamous “Trucker’s Convoy” that invaded Ottawa in January 2021, and to his inability to position the party as a strong defender of Canadian interests in the face of the Trump tariffs threat that dominated the election.
Another obvious problem for Poilievre is his apparently unwavering support for his closest adviser, Jenni Byrne. This would be the same Jenni Byrne who was once described as Poilievre’s Pitbull, and who is widely seen as being responsible for Poilievre’s inability or unwillingness to pivot during the campaign. Closer to home, there is a string of disgruntled party workers a mile long that had personal run-ins with Byrne over her arbitrary appointment or rejection of party candidates in many ridings, many of which did not result in a Conservative victory. One prominent example was her rejection of a widely regarded former BC Finance Minister, Mike deJong, in favour of Sukhman Gill, a 25-year-old political newcomer and blueberry farmer. Although Gill was actually elected, this was hardly surprising since the riding was a safe Conservative seat. For many, the point was that riding independence was attacked and the level of relevant expertise within the caucus was not increased. As deJong himself complained, “Someone decided that the … only living finance minister with five balanced budgets under his belt was not qualified to run for the Conservative party. I don’t know who that is,” de Jong said, adding he’s been told the decision was made by the national campaign manager Jenni Byrne.”[i] Yet despite growing public complaints and calls for Byrne to be removed, Poilievre’s office has confirmed that she remains his adviser and is still involved in the party, where she attends meetings as his proxy.[ii]
Then there is Poilievre’s problematic byelection gamble. On the one hand, the safe Conservative seat in Alberta that was handed to him on a silver platter by now former Conservative MP Damien Kurek is very unlikely to reject Poilievre. On the other hand, Battle River-Crowfoot has been held by Kurek since 2019 and his margin of victory in the recent election was 80%. Poilievre is widely seen in the riding as a city boy from Ottawa despite his legitimate Alberta roots, and he clearly has an image problem. He also will not be helped by the fact the riding is also home to the most significant enclave of western separatists in the province. In addition his margin of victory could be negatively affected by the group of electoral reform activists that has lately made a practice of swamping the ballot with the names of dozens of their supporters. Simply put, Poilievre is unlikely to come anywhere near the 80% high water mark set by Kurek. The only question is how low his support can go before grassroots Conservatives begin to doubt his ability to improve the party’s fortunes nationally.
This concern has likely been heightened by recent polls demonstrating that the Conservatives are now further behind the Liberals in popular support than they were on election day, and that Poilievre is deeply unpopular with a large swath of voters.
A less obvious but hugely important problem for Poilievre is the complete collapse of the NDP. All Conservative majorities (and even most minorities) have depended on a strong NDP to split the progressive vote with the Liberals. But those victories have also been the result of the Conservative party’s moderate views and a far less populist orientation on those occasions. As Globe columnist Andrew Coyne has outlined in detail, a rightwing populist like Poilievre can not possibly take the Conservatives to victory in the next election even if the NDP recovers dramatically from its near-death experience, which is highly unlikely. [iii]
There is already evidence that Poilievre knows his hold on power is becoming ever more precarious. For one thing, his people have managed to orchestrate a move of the convention from Ottawa to Calgary. (Given that this will be a delegated convention, with delegates from the Atlantic and central Canada much less likely to make the trip, the likelihood of the Alberta venue being dominated by his western supporters increases dramatically. And that, in turn, will increase his margin of victory.) At this point it is unclear what number would be sufficient to stave off the kind of ongoing internal strife that Liberal leader John Turner faced despite winning 75% support at his own leadership review in 1985. As former CBC journalist Don Newman recently wrote, “Pierre Poilievre’s Fate is Now a Numbers Game.”[iv]
For another thing, Poilievre’s people are said to be ‘working the phones’ attempting to ensure as many of his known supporters as possible actually become delegates and attend the conference. Apparently this includes former unsuccessful candidates who were chosen by Byrne.
Interestingly, Andrew Coyne titled his piece on the Conservative Party’s dilemma “New Leader or New System?” His analysis is dead on, but his solution – a new system — is predictably wrong-headed. Coyne has long been a proponent of proportional representation, so it comes as no surprise that he champions it as the solution to the Conservatives’ woes, even though he admits “you really ought to have a more principled basis for supporting…” it. Apparently he does not want to admit the real problem with the Conservatives. With Poilievre as leader they are still the old Alliance Party in disguise. [v]
Even Stephen Harper knew better than to champion the Truckers’ Convoy or attack the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He may have been right of centre but he was no populist. And Harper’s lone majority resulted from the Liberal Party floundering uncharacteristically with two successive disastrous leaders in the form of Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff. That is hardly the case now. What is needed today is for the current Conservative party to move back towards the centre, adopting many of the traditional Progressive Conservative positions that delivered two majorities under Brian Mulroney. To do this the party must first replace Poilievre, and sooner rather than later.
All healthy democracies need at least two political parties with national appeal that are capable of forming a government. At the moment, there is only one.
[i] https://www.rmoutlook.com/national-news/former-bc-finance-minister-says-conservative-nomination-process-needs-examination-10862242
[ii] https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/despite-calls-for-change-poilievres-campaign-manager-keeps-an-advisory-role-firm-on-party-payroll
[iii] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-new-leader-or-new-system-the-conservatives-ponder-life-under-two-party/
[iv] https://www.policymagazine.ca/pierre-poilievres-fate-is-now-a-numbers-game/
[v] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-new-leader-or-new-system-the-conservatives-ponder-life-under-two-party/
