Mark Carney, Chrystia Freeland, and Christy Clark do not read my opinion pieces. Neither do François-Philippe Champagne, Frank Baylis, and maybe Dominic Leblanc. If they did, they’d likely detect a whiff of pessimism in my view of the chances of anyone taking over the leadership of the federal Liberals and staging a miraculous, Disney-like turnaround of political fortunes.
Are they all fools? Hardly. They didn’t get to where they are by being anything of the sort. But Michael Ignatieff was no fool, either, and where the hell did he end up? And some of you are probably even asking, who the hell is Michael Ignatieff? Which is kind of my point.
What do these people know, or think they know, that I don’t? The quick, top-of-mind answer is, plenty. Again, they’re them, and I’m me, and it isn’t even close.
Yes, it could simply be political hubris. Remember, anyone replacing Trudeau before a general election automatically becomes prime minister, which guarantees their spot on placemats featuring Canada’s first ministers, or trinkets given out by gas stations for purchasing their products on Canada Day. They’d be right up there with the Right Honourable Kim Campbell, Canada’s first and only female prime minister, who served for a buck and a half at the beginning of the 1990’s.
I’d throw Joe Clark in there to be fair, but his story was a different one from this. Although John Turner’s story is somewhat familiar, and he even replaced a departing Trudeau of his own before getting hammered by Brian Mulroney in 1984.
But is it as simple as that? To be able to tell the grandkids that you were once prime minister? I mean that would be plenty cool and everything, but running for PM and getting clobbered can really throw a brick into your future prospects, especially when you’re living through what are usually your peak-earning years. It could be a money-killer.
So what’s up? What are they sniffing in the air that has them even contemplating such a move? I’m going on record right now to say that, and I’m deadly earnest here, I don’t have a clue.
Do they sense the deep unpopularity of Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre despite the terrific popularity of the party he leads, a popularity based upon the fact that they’re not the Liberals? Because I think I even get a sense of that on the breeze.
If Erin O’Toole or Jean Charest were leading the Tories, I’d be fighting for position in line to vote for them the next federal election. Both are decent men turfed out by angrier voices, the one’s that backed Slogan Boy in the first place. Both of these men would represent a pan-Canadian federal Conservative party, sort of like we used to have when they were known as the Progressive Conservatives, back when I was a member, and before they let their baser instincts get the better of them.
Does Poilievre have the effect of making people think twice about what would otherwise be an obvious cake-walk? Can it be that people are looking for a little more than a bad-tempered fellow who feels the needs to reduce everything and everyone to a slogan? Blimey, he’s even started to call Mark Carney Carbon Tax Carney already, for the love of everything good and holy.
I’m still of the opinion that he’ll win the next election and will become our next prime minister. But maybe these Liberal leadership hopefuls feel they can fight him to a minority government status, instead of a crushing majority government. Maybe they feel they can contain the Tories to 169 seats or less in the House of Commons. That will have the Conservatives in charge with a minority government during what promises to be some difficult times, governmentally and politically. It will be Poilievre who will have to answer for a lot of things, and needing answers that don’t get satisfied by silly little rhymes. Nursery school will be over for Slogan Boy.
It’s only a scenario like this one where these people seeking the Liberal leadership makes any sense to me, that they can hold him to a minority.
That said, it’s a fine line to walk. If he wasn’t the leader, that option wouldn’t even be on the table. Also, with the deep dissatisfaction Canadians have towards the Liberals, it’s tough to count on enough Canadians to hold their noses and vote Liberal in a display of strategic political thinking. The leadership candidates would have to bank on their ability to energize traditional Liberal voters to not simply stay at home on election night, and that’s going to be a tough task right there.
I will say this.
If enough of the Liberal vote shows up, and if the NDP take it seriously on the chin with their existing leader — Thomas Mulcair would have looked pretty good right now — then maybe there’s a chance, an outside chance to be sure, that the Liberals can keep the Conservatives, and therefore Poilievre, away from a majority.
A week is a lifetime in politics. If the current federal government manages to survive until the scheduled election date of October 25, 2025, that would represent an awful lot of political runway. And it will give Canadians ten more months of Poilievre to help them with their decision-making. Perhaps this might even make the Conservative war room a little uneasy, worrying about the prospect of snatching defeat from the jaws of perceived victory. And anything less than a majority is a defeat for the Tories.
So, can it be done? Sure, I guess so. Will it be done? I still think that’s a pretty significant long-shot.
It’ll all come down to one thing:
Just how unpopular is Pierre Poilievre?
NEWSMAGRENFREW 