— Feature, Musings —12.27.2025 03:08 PM
The biggest losers
In Canadian politics, Pierre Poilievre should be – but actually isn’t – the biggest loser of the year.
And, yes, 2025 saw the Conservative leader blow a massive lead in the polls, lose an election that had been in the bag, and fritter away his own Ottawa-area seat. By any objective standard, that should qualify Poilievre as the political loser of the year.
But the biggest losers – the ones who will continue to be losers after Poilievre is gone, which is a foregone conclusion – are those who make up the Conservative Party of Canada. They are the real losers.
The Conservatives’ 2025 election loss – to a man who had never held elected office before, to a party that had been mired in misconduct and misfires – was not entirely Pierre Poilievre’s fault. Because Poilievre is the current Conservative Party of Canada in human form: too angry, a bit paranoid, often Trumpian. They are him, and he is them.
Consider the available evidence. For months – and long before Justin Trudeau’s departure, and Mark Carney’s debut – polls had been consistently showing that voters were decidedly unenthusiastic about Poilievre. His petulance, his arrogance, his bumper-sticker policy-making was hurting him with key constituencies – women, seniors, Quebeckers.
A year ago, as 2024 was coming to a close, multiple polls showed the Conservative Party had a huge lead over Trudeau’s Liberals. But, in every one of those polls, Poilievre was lagging behind his party. In December 2024, the Reid Institute found that every party leader was more unpopular than popular – with Poilievre being seen favourably by 37 per cent of respondents, and unfavourably by 55 per cent. That is a huge gap in an era where people vote for leaders as much as parties.
Leger, one of the most reliable federal pollsters, found the same sort of trend. In December 2024, only 22 per cent of Québec respondents thought Poilievre would make the best Prime Minister. Likewise for women and urban voters – only 24 and 27 per cent, respectively, saw the Tory leader as the best choice. Those are constituencies, as everyone knows, make up the vast majority of voters. Ignore them at your peril.
[To read more, subscribe here]
Warren,
Anyone who’s remotely sentient in the CPC already knows that the leader is nothing but a drag on our popularity, especially in swing ridings or those that will be two-way races. This time, my job is to say I told you so after the fact when we blow the next election. Not doing the heavy lifting this time. Nope. It’s all up to caucus and the Reform Act. We should get some kind of a trophy. After all, the next election will be our fifth loss in a row! We’re so deserving…
That is relative comparison. One could easily argue that the biggest losers in ascending order were:
1. Pierre
2. the CPC base
3. the country
Martin,
Are you serious? Do you really believe that Canada is the big loser because Pierre ain’t PM? With respect, sounds like a bridge too far for most voting Canadians.
You are the one literally making that case all over this site with your criticisms of Carney. It was a binary choice. It’s just math.
Martin,
OK, binary. In other words, a deeply flawed Carney is a million times better than a whatever Poilièvre. The voters have spoken and will do so again in the same fashion if this dud remains our leader. Simple, plain, fact. No offense intended.
I’ll tell you who prefers Mark Carney: Brookfield, the CBC, the CCP, the WEF and the Larentian elites.
Gilbert,
Undoubtedly.
As you know, when you don’t like someone, especially at the top of a ticket to use the American venacular, you don’t vote for him. Trudeau found that out and Pierre is in the exact same basket.
Ronald, that is a separate issue. No way could Pierre have been worse.
Canada’s the big winner because we voted against radical conservatives.
Who is this “we” you speak of.
All Canadians because even conservatives benefit when we vote for a balanced pragmatic and informed government
I look forward to electing one. We sure don’t have one now. Carney made one big promise and he has not kept it but your PDS is so bad, you can’t see it. In the meantime, I am going to keep buying Brookfiled to hedge my bets until you folks wake up.
The Liberals are a whopping +2 in the polling aggregates after a year of the biggest media pile-on of a single individual I can recall in my lifetime.
Poilievre’s annus horribilis is over. Michael Ma’s defection was the nadir. I personally don’t believe there will be other floor-crossers, not from the Conservatives anyway. Polling now suggests Canadians aren’t wild about the Liberals stealing a majority they didn’t earn.
Poilievre inverting the age cohorts on party support is his greatest political achievement to date. He and Steve Outhouse now have a couple years to craft a platform aimed squarely at Gen-Z and especially middle-aged Millennials he needs to put him in office (my hope: reduce OAS to rich seniors and apply the savings to middle class income tax cuts). The Liberals will hope their base of wealthy white Boomers can be whipped into a frenzy for a third election in a row. Not sure what they’ll come up with this time (maybe AI related?) but I’m sure there will be something!
I have been arguing with folks on the right and the left that think it is reasonable that a couple making 360k a year should be able to keep some of their OAS. The mind boggles.
Martin,
I agree with you and Pedant but would go much further: my idea given the fact that the debt and current account deficit can never be paid off is to means-test ALL social programs. Period.
But as Pedant says, we have to think big, but not that big. If we were to propose means-testing across the board we would definitely lose the next election. It will be interesting to see if Pedant’s proposal is taken up by the leader and Outhouse. I won’t be disingenous and state matter of factly that it won’t work. That would be hypocritical. However, I would put the odds of success at only 50-50, which is still better than less than 50-50.
Keep in mind that taking away a little bit of OAS from multi home baby boomers will be dressed up by Rosie et al as throwing seniors into the streets to be starved to death without health care. When in actual fact it will mean that their landscapers up in Muskoka wil have to get by with a smaller Christmas tip. Carney knows this (as did Morneau before he drank the Koolaid-anyone heard from him lately?)and he is not doing anything about it and that is why the country is the biggest loser. It is literally the biggest existential threat to the country but PDS, TDS and flapping elbows have blinded folks to it.
Pedant,
We all thought you were dead, it has been so long.
They will do what they always do: steal our platform and then summarily buy off GenX, Millenials and GenZ. Nice thought though.
Tales of my death have been greatly exaggerated.
The Liberals will steal things that are little/one-off or extremely long term that will either never happen or won’t have to answer for. Axing the carbon tax an example of the former, the pipeline MOU an example of the latter.
However, the Liberals will NOT steal something on the order of what I suggested : restructure the suite of tax benefits and program spending significantly away from wealthy seniors towards young and middle-aged workers. Reducing OAS payments to rich seniors is a non-starter for the Liberals, but should be a key part of broader reforms the Conservatives will propose next election. Poilievre and his team need to think big. Anything else will be stolen.
Hey Pedant,
This should keep you peppy: my prediction on the leadership review vote. 97%.