While Poilievre could theoretically soften, moderate and deepen his stances like the article is suggesting, there’s really no indication to suggest that he wants to. He’d have more political capital than people like O’Toole or Patrick Brown did when they won over the more socially conservative/True blue bases of their parties before revealing themselves as centrists in the leadup to a general election etc. but that would go against everything we’ve seen from Poilievre up to this point. There’s even an entire book published about him that argues that he’s the exact same type of ideologue in his youth/early political career as he is now and generally that’s not the type of person to read the room and try to change the course of the CPC etc.
Out of all the federal CPC leaders, he’s the perfect representation of what the CPC has become in the last decade. Obnoxious, contrarian, backwards on climate & social issues and driven by shallow identity politics over substantive policy etc. If any CPC leader was going to be the one to make the party what it needs to be to become more regularly more competitive to the Liberals, Poilievre would be near the bottom of that list.
Threeboys0810 on
Not really, since all we have is just words coming from the liberals. There hasn’t been a shovel in the ground yet, no official budget, no trade deal. We need to see what the liberals have in store for us.
[deleted] on
[deleted]
JadeLens on
Anyone with half a brain and two functioning eyes can see that.
Unfortunately PP has Jenni Byrne pulling his… strings.
RagePrime on
Absolutely, he is on the wrong horse. Our electorate was clear. More than half of us are only interested in maintaining the status quo, and that’s the winning horse in politics at the moment.
OkFix4074 on
Canadians love a PC – which is both politically correct and a progressive conservative politicians
PP is neither of that and is a drain on conservative party , longer they hold on to him while carney is in office there is no hope of them ever winning !
capt-hornblower on
There was an article briefly after the election, I think following the first post-election caucus meeting for the Conservatives, where the line coming from Pierre Poilievre’s office on the loss was basically „Our team got beat but we’re happy with how the campaign went, we’ll get them next time.“ I think that matters to how Poilievre’s continuing to act, and speak, as CPC leader. He didn’t do anything wrong, the reason they lost was because of the Trump factor that caused a ligtning in a bottle election for the Liberals to revive their fortunes. In the logic of CPC HQ, there is no need to change course because the factors that caused a Liberal victory are unlikely to be around the next time we go to the polls. Steady as she goes, we’ll get them next time.
There was also a Maclean’s article on Jenni Byrne from the campaign which very much advanced a view that her, and Poilievre, seem to believe that it is better to lose an election than soften the edges of their Conservatism. If they can’t win the argument that their version of Toryism is the right one, then what point is there in winning power? Better to lose as a True Blue Tory then govern as a Liberal that wears a blue tie.
I think this matters to the lack of course correction that the author of this Hill Times piece is advocating for. Poilievre and his team both 1) don’t think he needs to change and 2) don’t think changing is worth it. This is exacerbated by the fact that Poilievre will be facing a leadership review in the not too distant future. While I don’t think he is in any danger of losing, my guess is that the median member of the CPC is probably closer to the True Blue side of the party than the more moderate Tories who would prefer a softened Pierre Poilievre. This matters, if he wants a good score at the leadership review it is probably best for him to keep the base happy. Dropping all of the parts of his attack dog personality that made him leader in the first place is unlikely to accomplish that task.
bandersnatching on
Poilievre is not going to change his ways. He’s a megalomaniac; utterly convinced of his entitlement to high office, and the personal validation that in his mind it represents.
Once back in the House, it’s likely we will see more of the same Poilievre that cost him the election. And because of it, we will see calls for a reconstituted Progressive Conservative party, one with cross-national support, and a viable agenda and path to government.
KogasaGaSagasa on
But wait, Rolls Royce isn’t a horse.
Jokes aside, I unfortunately don’t have access to the article. It’s not just women though. I don’t consider anyone riding around a Rolls Royce in rural Alberta as a fit leader – guy can’t even read the room and understand what the people are going through, why the flip would I trust him with our country? He’ll just say pretty lies that people want to hear, but he ain’t got a brain on what the reality of being a Canadian is like.
Leave A Reply
Du musst angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.
9Â Kommentare
While Poilievre could theoretically soften, moderate and deepen his stances like the article is suggesting, there’s really no indication to suggest that he wants to. He’d have more political capital than people like O’Toole or Patrick Brown did when they won over the more socially conservative/True blue bases of their parties before revealing themselves as centrists in the leadup to a general election etc. but that would go against everything we’ve seen from Poilievre up to this point. There’s even an entire book published about him that argues that he’s the exact same type of ideologue in his youth/early political career as he is now and generally that’s not the type of person to read the room and try to change the course of the CPC etc.
Out of all the federal CPC leaders, he’s the perfect representation of what the CPC has become in the last decade. Obnoxious, contrarian, backwards on climate & social issues and driven by shallow identity politics over substantive policy etc. If any CPC leader was going to be the one to make the party what it needs to be to become more regularly more competitive to the Liberals, Poilievre would be near the bottom of that list.
Not really, since all we have is just words coming from the liberals. There hasn’t been a shovel in the ground yet, no official budget, no trade deal. We need to see what the liberals have in store for us.
[deleted]
Anyone with half a brain and two functioning eyes can see that.
Unfortunately PP has Jenni Byrne pulling his… strings.
Absolutely, he is on the wrong horse. Our electorate was clear. More than half of us are only interested in maintaining the status quo, and that’s the winning horse in politics at the moment.
Canadians love a PC – which is both politically correct and a progressive conservative politicians
PP is neither of that and is a drain on conservative party , longer they hold on to him while carney is in office there is no hope of them ever winning !
There was an article briefly after the election, I think following the first post-election caucus meeting for the Conservatives, where the line coming from Pierre Poilievre’s office on the loss was basically „Our team got beat but we’re happy with how the campaign went, we’ll get them next time.“ I think that matters to how Poilievre’s continuing to act, and speak, as CPC leader. He didn’t do anything wrong, the reason they lost was because of the Trump factor that caused a ligtning in a bottle election for the Liberals to revive their fortunes. In the logic of CPC HQ, there is no need to change course because the factors that caused a Liberal victory are unlikely to be around the next time we go to the polls. Steady as she goes, we’ll get them next time.
There was also a Maclean’s article on Jenni Byrne from the campaign which very much advanced a view that her, and Poilievre, seem to believe that it is better to lose an election than soften the edges of their Conservatism. If they can’t win the argument that their version of Toryism is the right one, then what point is there in winning power? Better to lose as a True Blue Tory then govern as a Liberal that wears a blue tie.
I think this matters to the lack of course correction that the author of this Hill Times piece is advocating for. Poilievre and his team both 1) don’t think he needs to change and 2) don’t think changing is worth it. This is exacerbated by the fact that Poilievre will be facing a leadership review in the not too distant future. While I don’t think he is in any danger of losing, my guess is that the median member of the CPC is probably closer to the True Blue side of the party than the more moderate Tories who would prefer a softened Pierre Poilievre. This matters, if he wants a good score at the leadership review it is probably best for him to keep the base happy. Dropping all of the parts of his attack dog personality that made him leader in the first place is unlikely to accomplish that task.
Poilievre is not going to change his ways. He’s a megalomaniac; utterly convinced of his entitlement to high office, and the personal validation that in his mind it represents.
Once back in the House, it’s likely we will see more of the same Poilievre that cost him the election. And because of it, we will see calls for a reconstituted Progressive Conservative party, one with cross-national support, and a viable agenda and path to government.
But wait, Rolls Royce isn’t a horse.
Jokes aside, I unfortunately don’t have access to the article. It’s not just women though. I don’t consider anyone riding around a Rolls Royce in rural Alberta as a fit leader – guy can’t even read the room and understand what the people are going through, why the flip would I trust him with our country? He’ll just say pretty lies that people want to hear, but he ain’t got a brain on what the reality of being a Canadian is like.