Can a political leader change his stripes?

It is fair to ask at this point what it will take for Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre to learn his lesson.

It has been a tough year for Poilievre.

First, he managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in a federal campaign which he had once been widely predicted to win. His party was ahead in the polls until U.S. President Donald Trump’s stateside antics left voters squeamish about the implications of a Conservative win here, and their mood changed wildly enough to turf Poilievre out of his own long-held Ottawa seat.

Doggedly clinging to party leadership, he inserted himself back into the ranks of sitting members by nabbing a safe Alberta seat from another MP, who stepped aside for his sake.

Now back in Ottawa, he has watched his party’s ranks dwindle — first with MP Chris d’Entremont’s defection to the Liberals, and now with the resignation of Alberta MP Matt Jeneroux.

It has not been a great run for Poilievre since the federal election. So the question is: has he learned anything?

In his own words, no.

Poiliever told the press earlier this week he will not be changing his leadership in the wake of these fresh departures. He asserted himself as the only leader in Parliament “fighting for an affordable Canada.”

But his efficacy on that front is limited as he continues to fight fires within his own party, and watches his ability to resist Liberal legislation walk out the door, one vote at a time. If Poilievre does not find another way to lead his party, it bodes poorly for both Canadians and himself.

Prime Minister Mark Carney faces a significant challenge in U.S. President Donald Trump, and his perceived meekness in the face of the volatile president is, understandably, earning criticism from Canadians wondering what exactly happened to “elbows up.”

Carney’s budget has won support across party lines, but his ambitions for the country have yet to be realized. Canadians deserve to have a strong official Opposition to hold the federal government to account as it embarks on costly nation-building projects amid a worsening climate crisis and a high cost of living.

Serving in that role, and doing so effectively, should be Poilievre’s focus.

Instead, it seems he is playing a losing game in trying to force a cult of personality in the Conservative ranks, insisting that it serve him and not the other way around. But for all that his opponents may accuse him of it, Poilievre is not actually “Trump-lite” or “Trump North”; he does not possess the strange charisma which led Trump to reshaping the Republican party in his image.

As recent events have proved, at least some members of the party are unwilling to dance to his tune.

If Poilievre insists on running the ship the way he has been, even as members of his party abandon him and his mission, then two things are increasingly likely: one, Canada’s Opposition bench will struggle to serve its purpose; and two, Poilievre himself will likely find himself knocked from his perch when his party holds its convention in January, and will have to ask themselves who they want carrying the leadership baton in the future.

The departure of his archrival, Justin Trudeau, threw Poilievre a curveball from which he has yet to recover.

His old methods are not working and will not likely suddenly pay off now. The ability to honestly take stock of the current moment and adapt as necessary is an important one for a leader to have.

If Poilievre wants to hold on to his position, he had better develop it quickly.