The Conservatives have a bigger problem than a Liberal majority: Their leader
[URL=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/authors/gary-mason/]
[/URL]When federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre appeared on the popular right-wing American podcaster Joe Rogan’s show last month ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-joe-rogan-pierre-poilievre-podcast-takeaways-canada-us/[/url]), many in his party were ecstatic with the result.
Mr. Poilievre resisted his worst instincts, passing on invitations to dump on Prime Minister Mark Carney, fuel separatist sentiment in Alberta or indulge in the conspiracy theories being propagated by Mr. Rogan.
Over all, the Joe Rogan experience was viewed as a mostly positive undertaking for the embattled Conservative ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/conservative-party/[/url]) Leader.
It prompted some to ask: was this a new Pierre Poilievre? Did he now understand he had to change in response to an opponent who was not Justin Trudeau, but rather was someone whose popularity with the Canadian public was on the ascent, and whose education and private- and public-sector bona fides made him a seriously formidable foe?
Well, for those wondering, a recent appearance by Mr. Poilievre on a Canadian Taxpayers Federation podcast appears to have provided the answer: No. The old cringeworthy party leader is always lurking.
During the show, the host offered the rather extraordinary view that Mr. Carney ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/topics/mark-carney/[/url]), despite his central banking experience and his PhD in economics, was worse with money than his predecessor Mr. Trudeau. At which point, Mr. Poilievre interjected.
“There’s one thing that’s worse than being uneducated and it’s being badly educated, and Mr. Carney is very badly educated on economics, and that is why he has been wrong on every single economic issue of our times,” he said. “Every single one of them.”
Campbell Clark: A moment Pierre Poilievre didn’t want to meet ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/opinion/article-a-moment-pierre-poilievre-didnt-want-to-meet/[/url])
He went on to say Mr. Carney had supported printing money and carbon taxes, and opposed new pipelines – all positions he had to “publicly reverse himself” on. This, Mr. Poilievre posited, demonstrated just how dumb the Prime Minister was when it came to economics.
It’s hard to know where to begin in parsing the utter inanity of Mr. Poilievre’s comments. But let’s start with education. Mr. Carney has a bachelor’s degree in economics from Harvard and a masters and PhD in economics from Oxford. In terms of training, it doesn’t get much better. He’s been the head of two central banks. He oversaw Canada’s much-lauded response to the 2008 financial crisis and, as governor of the Bank of England, was forced to deal with the fallout from the disastrous Brexit decision.
Mr. Poilievre, meantime, has a bachelor’s degree in international relations from the University of Calgary and has been a career politician his entire life.
Which prompts us to ask: Why can’t the man resist the urge to appeal to the lowest common denominator in his party and in the world outside of it? Is it because this is who he is, and so can’t and will never change?
He even allowed one of his trusted lieutenants, MP Andrew Scheer, to double down on this ludicrous line of attack. On X, Mr. Scheer said Mr. Carney might have “degrees from a fancy University,” but was “badly educated.” He stated Mr. Carney had a “terrible tenure” at the Bank of England, ignoring the fact that the then-Conservative government asked him to stay on longer. He also said the PM was giving Canada the “worst economy in the G7,” despite the fact the IMF just forecast that this country would have the second-highest real GDP growth among the G7 countries in 2026.
Just. So. Vacuous.
This is largely why I do not subscribe to the view that the majority government the federal Liberals now have is somehow good for the Conservatives and their leader.
Yes, it’s a plus if you’re into avoidance politics and you’re a party that is afraid of making hard decisions. The Conservatives, we should add, lost significant support in all three by-elections this week. This should have set off a loud, persistent alarm in the party.
Robyn Urback: Why Pierre Poilievre might quietly welcome the new Liberal majority ([url]https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-why-pierre-poilievre-might-quietly-welcome-the-new-liberal-majority/[/url])
Additionally, there are few in Ottawa who believe we have seen the last of Conservative floor-crossings. And who can blame those wanting to abandon a ship being steered by Mr. Poilievre and second officers like Mr. Scheer?
Do the Conservatives honestly believe the way to respond to their crisis is to cheer on a leader who thinks that launching mindless attacks at a PM trying to navigate through one of Canada’s most perilous epochs is the answer to all that ails his party?
Under no circumstances will this prove to be a winning strategy.
There has to be someone who has a clearer, more realistic sense of the present state of affairs – someone willing to initiate an honest conversation around the party’s leadership.
Because if that doesn’t happen, the Conservatives are going to find themselves heading into another election behind someone whose default position is to bully, demean and insult. And most Canadians have no time for that.
Comment