The ‘Poilievre gamble’ facing Conservatives

It can be cold in Calgary in January. Cold like a knife. The perfect setting for a Conservative Party leadership review taking place in the last weekend of the month.

It was cold in Winnipeg that last weekend of January 1983. That’s when then-Progressive Conservative party leader Joe Clark lost his leadership review vote. Despite leading in the polls over the Pierre Trudeau Liberals, he received a tepid 66.9 per cent support from party members.

Clark, who had lost an election and, worse, government, two years before, called for an immediate leadership convention to “clear the air.” Five months later, the air cleared with Brian Mulroney as the new PC leader and soon-to-be prime minister for almost a decade.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and his team know how the dominoes can fall in politics. That’s why they are pulling out all the stops to make sure the number in Calgary far exceeds the number in Winnipeg.

They chose Calgary to give the Conservative leader, and newly minted Alberta MP, a home field enthusiasm advantage. Then they chose the last weekend in January, dates that conflict with Ontario PC Party’s own annual general meeting, guaranteeing fewer discordant voices showing up from Premier Doug Ford’s backyard.

Their strategy can be summed up in a phrase: fast and furious.

Here’s the fast part: scheduling the review vote as soon as possible, nine months after the last, lost election, before any negative dissension against him over the April election loss can build; organizing a fast byelection in August in a safe Alberta seat to get back into the House of Commons and the media without delay; and dismissing quickly any post-election change of tone that voters might want — but which the party base decidedly does not.

Here’s the furious part: a no-holds barred public and evidently private lashing out against two Conservative MPs who broke ranks, one who crossed the floor to the Liberals while the other, having crossed the leader, resigned from Parliament altogether — along with very public tongue-lashings of the media for their coverage of these caucus eruptions.

In his three years as leader, Poilievre has built up a formidable and loyal following within the party, within the caucus and with many Conservative voters. A recent Abacus Data poll gave him a net-positive rating of plus-71 among Conservative voters. But that same poll gave him a net-negative rating of minus-61 among non-Conservative voters.

Welcome to the “Poilievre gamble” facing Conservatives in January. It’s a simple gamble, simply stated: Do we keep the leader we want but Canadians don’t?

It’s a gamble because of an old political saying, “You never get a second chance to make a first impression.” Poilievre’s first impression remains decidedly negative with most voters. An impression based principally on his style, tone and message. They will vote for him only if, and when, one of two things happen.

First, Poilievre needs Prime Minister Mark Carney and the Liberals to wear out their welcome with Canadians by failing to deliver. At some point in time, the Liberals will be voted out and Conservatives will be voted in.

A vigorous Opposition, relentless prosecuted by Poilievre, as he has shown he can do, can help bring this about. Mostly, though, it will be events and circumstances outside of the Conservative leader’s control that will cause this to happen or not, much as Donald Trump upended the last U.S. election calculus.

Second, Poilievre needs to adjust his presentation to become less abrasive and more acceptable to Canadians in what he says and how he says it. Some of that occurred in the campaign, but it was too little, too late. Since then, it has all but disappeared. After 20 years in politics honing his trade, the Poilievre on display today is authentic but uncompromising.

The first is outside of his control but easier to execute. It’s what he’s been successfully doing as leader of the Opposition. The second is within his control but harder to execute because it stems from the leader’s own personality and natural impulses.

Therein lies the gamble. Ironically, it is the mirror opposite of Poilievre’s own campaign message of Conservatives as “change” and Liberals as “more of the same.”

The party’s dilemma is that neither it, nor its leadership, genuinely wishes to change. They rode to prominence as outsiders of unapologetically assertive conservatism centred around contemporary culture wars of identity politics fueled by populism, grievance and “owning the Libs.” To them, any change is compromise and any compromise is surrender.

They wish to not just win but win in their own way, to prove themselves right and the others wrong. They seek not only a mandate to govern, but a mandate for a vision of conservative change on their own terms. A choice not an echo, in the famous phrase of American movement conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly.

Back in Opposition, Pierre Poilievre and his party now have a choice to make. Make the wrong choice and Conservatives will hear the echo of a another Liberal government.

David McLaughlin is a former clerk of the executive council and cabinet secretary in the Manitoba government.