Kelly McParland: Can Poilievre steal back his agenda?

A year ago, Justin Trudeau was still determined to hang on as prime minister, still professing to believe he could win the next election against all odds and public evidence.

If he’d held on, he’d probably have been creamed in the election he would likely have been forced to call within months. The Liberal party would have been reduced to post-Mulroney-esque levels, while Prime Minister Pierre Poilievre would be basking in the glory of his achievement, his majority and the deep affections of his caucus. But Trudeau didn’t hold on, and everything is different as a result.

Now, Poilievre is determined to hang on as Conservative leader, still convinced he can win the next election. The odds against that happening aren’t as bad as they were for Trudeau, but you wouldn’t want to bet the farm on it.

In politics, Trudeau had both birth and good fortune on his side, but he stayed far too long, challenged the good nature of too many Canadians and should have left before he was forced out. Voters were already tiring of him at the end of his first term, when he ended up losing both his majority and the popular vote. Two years later, in the midst of a global pandemic he tried to capitalize on, Trudeau called an unnecessary election and won even fewer votes.

Like many in his party, he suffered an inability to distinguish between his own beliefs and the national interest. Liberals have been coddled so often with the notion they represent a natural governing party, they’ve come to believe it. They see their own views and the national interest as one and the same thing.

Certainly, the climate wing of the party reflects the conviction that producing 1.4 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions justifies whatever damage is done to the economy — no matter how many jobs that may entail — by policies producing small-to-minuscule reductions.

Poilievre may dispute it, but he exhibits a similar reluctance to accept that his beliefs aren’t necessarily a match for those of the country, and an unwillingness to consider whether he’d do better to look within himself rather than try to force his outlook on others.

As they did with Trudeau, voters have been clear in their expectations: they were willing to elect the Conservatives if Poilievre was the only alternative to more of the same, but switched quickly when that option changed.

Right now, they hold the party in higher regard than they do its leader: while virtually all polls show Liberals and Conservatives in a dead heat, Poilievre trails Mark Carney as preferred prime minister by 20 points or more.

Poilievre, like Trudeau, is highly partisan, a condition evident in his enthusiasm for parliamentary manoeuvring aimed at embarrassing the government. One of his last big efforts before the Christmas break was to force a vote on the government’s pipeline plan in the hope of disconcerting enough anti-oil Liberal MPs to rattle the party. It went nowhere and no one noticed.

Discomfort with Poilievre within his party has become evident via recent defections. Two MPs have departed to the Liberals and a third is quitting politics altogether. More could follow. That doesn’t happen in a happy group that’s united in its mission. Poilievre’s seeming bafflement at why it would happen is part of the problem itself.

Strong leaders are good at explaining themselves and their ideas, attracting support using ideas and persuasion over bluster or gamesmanship. There’s nothing wrong with the Conservative agenda, which is why the government has stolen so much of it and is busy implementing it with public support.

Poilievre’s response has been to stand his ground. He accuses Carney of playing dirty politics by trying to fashion an “undemocratic majority” by luring away Tory MPs with “dirty backroom deals.” Carney says no one was lured. “They came to us,” he said in a year-end interview. “They are attracted by what we are doing. And that’s a key element.”

Poilievre faces a leadership review next month, and has made clear he has no intention of changing his approach to the job. “I’m the only one who’s been consistently championing the right of people who work hard, to have decent food, to have a good home, to live on a safe street,” he said.

That’s debatable — every leader would say they’re working just as hard towards the same goals. Poilievre’s problem is that after three years as leader and one lost election, he’s failed to persuade enough Canadians he’s better than the alternative, or perhaps even that he’s the best bet for the party.

He’s still expected to win the convention vote, but anything less than an overwhelming endorsement will be a strong signal that change is needed. Another thing leaders need to be good at is adapting to changing situations. Even if he does get a strong blessing, Poilievre will have to face the fact that his opponent has been selling Tory policies better than he did — and do something about it.

National Post