I haven’t been especially persuaded by the growing doubts about Pierre Poilievre’s leadership.
Most of them are about polls and personality. The Conservatives lost an election they were expected to win. They’re still behind the Liberals. Poilievre’s personal numbers aren’t great. Maybe a different leader would do better. And in any case, as I’ve written before, Canadian Conservatives are historically inclined to the “Tory syndrome” of second-guessing their leaders.
Yet polls change. Political circumstances can too. I’m more interested in something else: what does the Conservative Party actually stand for? That’s why the past week has been so discouraging.
I’ve defended Poilievre’s leadership because he hasn’t joined the drift away from markets that’s overtaken much of the Anglo-American Right. While conservatives elsewhere flirt with industrial planning and outright collectivism, he’s anchored himself in the case for economic freedom.
After a speech earlier this year, for instance, I called his vision of a “meritocratic, bottom-up competitive economy” one of the most compelling defences of free markets and free people made by any Conservative leader in the English-speaking world in years.
Poilievre has been genuinely good at translating classical liberal ideas into populist language: competition over gatekeepers, workers over rent-seekers, challengers over incumbents. It’s also been central to his appeal with younger Canadians. He persuasively communicated to a generation locked out of homeownership and squeezed by high costs that their problems are the product of policies designed to protect people who already had theirs.
Which is why two things that happened this week land so badly.
The Conservative Party’s recent decisions under Pierre Poilievre’s leadership have raised concerns over their drift from core principles of economic freedom. The party’s support for supply management and increased Old Age Security payments are particularly worrying, given they contradict foundational conservative beliefs. Conservatives need to maintain a clear stance on market competition and to avoid pandering to specific voter groups at the expense of the broader public interest.
Ask about this article — or anything in Canadian politics, economics, and public policy — powered by The Hub’s 5,000-article archive and deep area expertise.
Comments (4)
I would prefer if PP went after the lack of choice in banking, airlines, telecommunications, etc and endorsed a consumer agenda – as in stop protecting businesses and holding consumers hostages to a limited number of choices all in the name of nationalism and embrace competitiveness and freedom of choice. To be honest, I am not sure the public would welcome any of this – the average Canadian is an idiot – they think “supply management” is maintain the health and safety of the supply of dairy. There is so little that the average Canadian knows why our economy is stagnant or why goods and services cost so much, I am not sure how to break through.