Pierre Poilievre's gamble

Weighing the pros and cons of the Conservative leader's retreat to Alberta

Anyone who does politics professionally knows that the voter is always right. They may be misinformed or misdirected, lashing out or confused, angry and wrong, but ultimately they are always right.

What this means is that it is wise to heed the message that voters deliver if you want to build for future success. Sometimes the message is written in large letters on the wall behind you, sometimes you need to really focus on the tea leaves to interpret what results might mean. Deciphering the signs is part of the game, and decisions are made on the most reasonable bet.

The Conservative Party is no-doubt reading the wall and the tea leaves to figure out their next move. And in their loose leaf tea guzzling and wall reading, they have decided that it is best if Pierre Poilievre sticks around as leader of the party.

Is it a gamble that will pay off?

On one hand, when voters say very clearly that they find you to be loathsome, you have to take that seriously. Losing an election, in a riding that you’ve held for decades is a cry for change. It isn’t a close call or a candidate who was the victim of unfortunate circumstances here — Poilievre’s loss was people saying they don’t support his candidacy.

But do the wishes of the voters of the riding of Carleton match the wishes of the rest of Canada?

That’s hard to say, as those wishes change from riding to riding. Poilievre’s plan to run in a safe Conservative riding three provinces over will secure him a seat, but he will walk into the House of Commons a tarnished man. Losing his seat in his long-held riding isn’t an average loss — that is a set of Canadians that have said they have no confidence in your ability to lead Canada, including a lot of Conservatives.

There is a lesson here: that Conservative voters will not vote for anyone who is put in front of them. Many are uneasy with Poilievre, even if they are comfortable with the direction of the party. If the Conservative machine ignores that Poilievre’s style and substance were rebuked, their gamble will fail.

Plus, Poilievre cannot help himself but to act like an entitled brat, something that also doesn’t play well while Canadians are struggling to pay for food, housing and transportation. The by-election is going to cost Canadians millions of dollars, and the party isn’t going to force Poilievre to vacate the residence of the leader of the opposition, even though he is not technically the leader of the opposition right now. Interim party leader Andrew Scheer said that it will cost too much for Poilievre to move out and then move back in again — which begs the question, cost who? Why would Canadians be on the hook for a private citizen’s move, and how much rent will we be charging Poilievre to squat there for six months? (The Globe and Mail doesn’t entertain this question, though imagine it were tenants who refused to leave their appartment after being evicted?)

None of this is good for Poilivre’s tenure as leader. As I learned during my days in the student movement, if you lose an election but then engage in funny business to maintain power, you can only maintain power for so long. Eventually, the people will refuse to allow you to continue the façade.

Conservative strategists know this, and they believe that this risk is outweighed by the positive signs for the party under Poilievre’s leadership: increased support from voters and higher support than Stephen Harper ever got to name two. But how much of that success was thanks to Poilievre himself, and how much of it was anti-Liberal sentiment? It’s hard to say.

At the start of the election, Philippe Fournier identified that Poilievre is popular among Conservative voters but not so much among anyone else. Carney’s approval rating is higher than Poilievre’s, and Poilievre’s decision to not exit gracefully will frustrate non-Conservatives who were happy to hear he had lost. We know that Stephen Harper’s loathsomeness was eventually his undoing, and it will likely be Poilievre’s undoing as well.

Ultimately, the Conservatives are picking the path of least resistence — shore up the Conservative base, perhaps use this as a learning moment for Poilievre to be less publicly dickish, and hope that Carney’s honeymoon ends just in time for the triumphant return of their rightful leader. But renewal is in the air, and a leadership race could provide the Conservatives with the juice that they need to defeat the Liberals the next time they have the chance. Instead, they’ve decided that it’s easier to stay the course and double down. It’s a gamble either way, with one option potentially turning the party in on itself, and the other potentially locking an albatross to its neck; one option potentially triggering necessary and positive renewal, and the other potentially giving Canadians a PPPM.

My sense is that the gamble is not going to work, and Poilievre will never ascend to the throne of Prime Minister. But that’s a very weak sense that I wouldn’t place more than $10 on. In politics, anything can happen. Or, almost anything — turning a man like Pierre Poilievre into someone interesting and likeable might be just as possible as reading the future in the bottom of a cup of tea.