It looks like the Conservative leadership race is over. What does that mean for Canada and the next election?

Clip You’re listening to a Frequency Podcast Network production in association with CityNews.

Jordan You may have missed it, but the final debate in the Conservative Party of Canada’s leadership race took place Wednesday night. If you did miss it, well, don’t feel too bad. You were far from the only one.

Clip Well, I can tell you there’s no place I’d rather be right now. I’m told that I could have instead of being here with all of you in Saskatchewan.

Jordan That was Pierre Poilievre, who, over the past several months has gone from favourite to frontrunner to basically all but a done deal to become the next leader of the Conservative Party. And if he doesn’t feel like he needs to be there, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that not too many people even noticed the debate was happening. So has Poilievre really sewn this thing up already? If he has, what does that mean for the Conservative Party and its direction? What does it mean for the Liberals? And the next time we go to the polls? And most importantly, what could it mean for Canada? Because whether or not you support Poilievre and the Conservatives, he has some big plans should he find himself in the Prime Minister’s office. And if he does, the millions of Canadians who put him there are going to be expecting some radical changes. I’m Jordan Heath-Rawlings. This is The Big Story. David Moscrop is a podcaster, a columnist, a political scientist, and the author of the evermore relevant 2019 book, Too Dumb for Democracy? Hello, David.

David Moscrop Good day. And I have to say former Canadian political, sometimes Canadian political scientist, because, like a true masochist, I occasionally now I’m writing academic stuff for fun. For fun.

Jordan Yeah. That’s unique.

David Moscrop Yes, it is.

Jordan Why don’t you start by telling me about the final Conservative Party leadership debate that happened Wednesday night? What kind of affair was it and why didn’t we hear more about it?

David Moscrop I was going to ask you. I didn’t watch it because, in part, it’s a little bit like playing a Stanley Cup final game. After the cup’s been awarded, Poilievre decided to set up the debate. They sat them around a table inside a studio with no audience. I was catching up on the news about it this morning. Maybe it’s more like you know a bandwidth. It’s a classic front person. You know imagine, like, talking about David Byrne and you get Tom Tom club.

Jordan Well, why wasn’t Pierre Poilievre there? At least? Let’s start with this. Why wasn’t he there, according to him, speaking at a rally?

David Moscrop Well, according to his campaign, he wasn’t there because the debate was being held during the get-out-the-vote period. And it was far more effective for campaigns to be focusing on going to meet their people and getting out the vote than it is to be sitting around and debating, which they’ve already done twice. I guess three times, technically, with the unofficial debate and you know what? OK, I get that. That was the official reason for the campaign. It just wasn’t the right thing to do. There were better things to do during the balloting period.

Jordan Put on your political strategist, political scientist had just for a minute. What about unofficially? Why would Pierre not go to this debate?

David Moscrop I mean, if you won the war, why would you poke your head out into a sniper’s alley?

Jordan Has he won this war? This race is over. Is it?

David Moscrop I think it is, and I think a lot of people think it is. And I think the numbers confirmed that it is both the fundraising numbers and the membership sold. Now, it might not be in the sense that the ballots haven’t all been marked and returned, so it’s entirely possible that those that are out there still could go to someone else. The numbers could change if something kind of cosmic happened. But I think if you’re a betting person and I don’t bet on politics or sports anymore, for that matter, to borrow an old Nor McDonald joke, I don’t like my bookie anymore, but if I were to bet on it, I would say the smart money is on it’s over. And so Pierre Poilievre has no, there’s no upside for him to show up at a debate where he’s going to reach fewer people probably, than if he went out and saw a crowd. And that’s what he did yesterday. In fact, he made a sort of an off-hand remark when he was in Saskatchewan. That’s why he would sit around and listen to a former liberal premier talk about carbon tax when he could be meeting people. Pretty good line. Not particularly kind, but it hasn’t been a kind race.

Jordan We’ll talk about his pretty good lines in a minute here because that’s a big part of this campaign. But just to focus on the race, such as it is, you and a lot of people think it’s over. Was it ever not over? I mean, back when Patrick Brown was also in it, there was kind of thoughts that he and Jean Charest could team up and take down but. But it really kind of has seemed like his to lose from the very moment it began, right?

David Moscrop Yes, I think it was from day one, he was the presumptive favourite. I don’t think it was a coronation, though. It wasn’t fait accompli before it even started. In fact, there was an awful lot of talk about the resistance from the resistance from Brown, the fact that Lewis was surprisingly competitive the last time she ran. She could be again. Maybe Roman Baber would dilute peer support a little bit. So it was a proper race in which different competing factions with different competing ideologies and perspectives on conservatism were having it out. And so it wasn’t a coronation in the way that, say, Justin Trudeau running was more or less a coronation, or that matter before him, Paul Martin. Those were coronations. This was not a close race in the end, probably, but it wasn’t quite a coronation. But I will say the fact that Poilievre has been the favourite from the start and seems to be the favourite right to the end says that he was always the powerhouse candidate. But what it doesn’t say, it doesn’t pick up is the fact that there was an ideological debate happening in a way that you often don’t see in other parties. In fact, the Conservatives, I would say, are more at least expressly ideological diverse within the narrow world of Conservatism than, say, the Liberals are within the centrist world or even in some cases the NDP within the left world.

Jordan Let’s talk about that for a minute and maybe you can explain that ideological debate. And what does it say about or mean for the future of the Conservative Party of Canada that Poilievre has now seemingly at least run away with it?

David Moscrop Well, to oversimplify for the purposes of this because nobody wants to lecture, there are two general camps you can look at within the leadership race. The sort of old, what you call Red Tory, a kind of socially progressive ish economically slightly status but still business conservatism in the Red Tory mould of Joe Clark and a little bit Brian Mulroney and on the way back to John Diefenbaker to some extent that’s the sort of old Tory style that we saw for decades. And that was pretty much wiped out when the Alliance Party came to dominate conservatism and then became the Conservative Party anew. And on the other hand, it’s sort of libertarian-ish populist pastiche conservatism that you saw a little bit of in Stephen Harper. I wouldn’t call Stephen Harper a populist, but there were remnants of the prairie populism that was part of the Reform Party and Preston Manning in the early eighties and nineties, those sort of libertarianism of getting government out of your lives, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut

Jordan Right.

David Moscrop Less taxes, let people do what they want. Except if you’re Pierre Poilievre who supports the dairy lobby and supply management, in which case there’s a big old asterisk big old gatekeeper that he likes. But those are the two general camps and you saw Lewis and Poilievre and Baber in the one and Mitchison sort of in the middle and Charest and Brown in the Red Tory side and those are the two general camps and they were having it out. And that represents the debate that the Conservative Party has been having internally and sometimes split apart for decades and that’s continued throughout this race. But it seems in this case, the kind of libertarian populist pastiche that Poilievre picked up is going to carry the day.

Jordan Well, because you mentioned it then. I’ll ask you. Stephen Harper came out and endorsed Pierre Poilievre. What does that mean? And were you surprised by that?

David Moscrop No, I wasn’t surprised at all. And it’s long been known that Stephen Harper is not the biggest fan of Jon Charest. You can read all about that pretty much everywhere. They’ve got beef that goes back a number of years. They’re also very different kinds of conservatives. Harper is the father of the modern contemporary, I should say Conservative Party, and no doubt he had an interest in seeing it survive, unified in the mould in which she created it. And that’s no doubt, but why he came out in support of Poilievre, who is in many senses the standard bearer of that type of conservatism. And Aaron Wary wrote a pretty good piece in CBC about how Harper was passing that populist torch. I keep doing this P alliteration.

Jordan I know, the passing of the populist torch is not great for podcasting.

David Moscrop It is not. And I feel like I adopt this sort of like Spiro Agnew-esque thing, so God help us all.

Jordan I had seen some people likening this to Donald Trump kind of taking over the GOP with fiery populist rhetoric, et cetera, et cetera, mostly linked, I guess, to Poilievre’s YouTube videos and popularity on social media. That seems not right to me. Like, on the one hand, people want to see this as a really new thing for this party to be this rhetorically aggressive, I guess. But Pierre Poilievre is a long-standing Conservative MP. Like, he’s not coming out of nowhere to upset the apple cart.

David Moscrop I think that’s true. He is not an outsider in the way that Trump was an outsider but also was Trump an outsider. He wasn’t a longtime politician, member of the party, or been donating to both parties for some time, but he was still an economic and political elite. And so is Pierre Poilievre and so in that sense, they’re slightly dissimilar in the party membership loyalty sense. Poilievre is very much a conservative and has been for a very long time. He’s insistent on that. I don’t think he’s cynical in that sense. I think he’s cynical in other senses. Trump was different, but they’re both elites. And Pierre Poilievre has been an MP for years, since his 20s. He has a pension from his service. That means he’s been around a while. He’s more than secured that. And he was a cabinet minister, for God’s sake. So he’s an elite. But where they are similar is that they’ve taken aim at what they call gatekeepers. They’ve taken aim at traditional leads as part of the problem who needs to be taken down incidentally, something the left also does, but in a different sense. Now you’ve seen on the sort of right ring version, the elites are government politicians, people who stand in the way of cutting into a smaller government and more freedom quote on quote for the people on the left, the elites are corporations, robber barons, economic elites who are out of the interest in themselves and the shareholders and not the masses. So in that sense, Poilievre has picked up as a populous pastiche but his target is different than populism that you’d see for instance on the left.

Jordan When we spoke to Shannon Proudfoot, the bureau chief for Macleans about Poilievre she spent a decent amount of time with the kind of drew out two sides of him the aggressive flamethrower with the good lines that we talked about and then also the student of political history. The guy who knows how politics works and knows how to get things done et cetera. Et cetera. A lot of people have been saying that Poilievre is taking this tact to secure the leadership and that he will move to the center once he wins. Do you think that there is a moderate inside him?

David Moscrop No, I don’t. I will say, if you’re looking to understand Poilievre Shannon’s piece is a very good place to start and she’s a remarkably talented journalist and she was able, as she often is, to draw a lot out from him and his politics and put it in context. So I mean, I think that piece is a great place to start. I wouldn’t conclude from it or any other piece for that matter that we can say, well, this is simply a leadership gambit. He will moderate. I mean, he might and I think to some extent he may have to because of the nature of our system. But I wouldn’t say that you’re going to get a fundamentally different Poilievre as leaders of the Conservative Party or prime minister than we have now. He believes what he believes. To the extent that he’d be moderated, it would be by the fact that he has to deal with as leader caucus, MPs, senators, party officials and opposition, other opposition parties in the government or in government. He’s got to deal with again the caucus, the opposition, the courts, the premiers, other countries and the people of Canada and so on and so forth to whom he’s made significant promises that he’s going to have an awfully difficult time keeping. So I do think the structure of the state and the reality of being in a leadership position which is much more difficult than running for it would temper him a little bit just by necessity. But I still don’t think that would mean he would give up his program. And I do think he would remain a combative politician because he’s always been a combative politician.

Jordan Right.

David Moscrop I don’t think he’s going to win and become a great unifier all of a sudden because he’s in this position of power. I think, if anything, he probably doubles down on it even if the rhetoric does become tempered somewhat and the limits of what he can do become apparent.

Jordan What is it about that program that has people either concerned or frankly, fired up?

David Moscrop Well, I think first and foremost he’s speaking to a rather large constituency that is rather rightfully concerned about their present and their future. They’re anxious, they’re frustrated, they’re scared, they’re angry, they’re angry about making less money or maybe not enough money, about housing being too expensive, about inflation being a serious problem, about being tired two and a half years into the pandemic, that they simply can’t get ahead and they want solutions. They’re angry about health care, they’re angry about education, they’re angry about all kinds of things. Probably anxious about climate and Poilievre has picked up on this and has been speaking to it in a way that other politicians haven’t, and that fires a lot of people up. But the program he advances, or at least ostensibly advances, he hasn’t been super detailed, but we can kind of work it out from what he said is smaller government, fewer services, or less of it, right? He has this idea that ministers and his government would have to follow up pay as you go rule. If you were to introduce a new dollar spending, you have to cut a dollar spending as if the government were household finance, which is not. So there’s this idea that, okay, well, smaller government will free people, and when people are free, they can go make money, and they get money from paychecks, not from the government. Never and it ends up better. That’s where people get anxious because there’s a moment in which people think, actually, maybe the government is important in our lives. We need government now more than ever. We need it for health care, we need it for dental care, for mental health care, for vision, to tackle climate change, to make sure that when we lose our job because of a pandemic or economic downturn, that we have a decent employment insurance scheme, that we have a pension and retire and so on and so forth, saying, okay, well, we need more government. That’s not the Poilievre formula. And so those who believe less government will free them to do better, to make more money, love this. Those who don’t are rightfully concerned about it. But he’s picking up on the general anger across the population, including myself. I cannot stand him, but I watch his videos and I watch his rhetoric and think he’s tapping into something important that other politicians haven’t been able to. And it really speaks to people, and I understand why it does. To some extent, you’ve got to give it up because he’s done a great job at tapping into that sentiment, even though he’s playing with fire.

Jordan Why is he playing with fire?

David Moscrop I think first and foremost, stylistically, and I think rather cynically, he has adopted this caricature of himself, sort of stature cosplay for the post-truth era. And it’s simply productive. It works, generates lots of money, and it sells memberships.

Jordan What’s dangerous about it? Why is he playing with fire?

David Moscrop Well, because it is fundamentally premised on two things. One, attack, attack, attack, attack the Bank of Canada, attack the CBC, attack Trudeau, attack journalists. And that creates a kind of febrile animosity or at least throws it in a very dangerous way because when people get riled up like that They do things we’d rather they didn’t do. Vitriol, for instance, or worse. We’ve seen in the United States what happens when you whip people up into this frenzy. That’s zero one. So that’s fundamentally dangerous. And norm-breaking probably sorts of starts this race to the bottom because now everyone’s at it, and you throw the norms out the window, and then what you have is the United States right? So, that’s point one. Point two is he’s making an awful lot of very angry promises to a lot of angry people. Now, do you think he can keep all of those promises? Can he lower the price of gas? Can he lower the price of food? Can he raise wages? Can he secure jobs? My guess is probably not. What happens when you can’t make good on all those promises? What happens to those angry people then? Well, their lives get worse, for one, because you haven’t solved their problems. Two, they’re very angry, and now they’re very resentful, and they become more distrusting and they get up to God knows what. So there are at least two reasons that his campaign is extraordinarily dangerous, but it might work for him in the short run. In the long run, I’m reminded of a line that JFK once used you know those who seek power by riding the back of the tiger often end up in the inside, as Trump did, right? I mean, you can keep this up for a while, but if it doesn’t work, and often it doesn’t work well, then that’s it for you. That’s the end of your career, and you’ve just left a giant mess.

Jordan Well, that brings us to the last thing that I want to talk about, which is, again, assuming Poilievre secures the leadership right now, we’re not supposed to have an election for a few years. We know that can change. But just how fundamentally different will the next election be if it’s Pierre Poilievre versus Justin Trudeau?

David Moscrop Well, there was some data recently from Angus Reid and some interpretation from Philippe Fournier who wrote a good piece about it in Politico. And the sense is Charest would probably be better for the Conservatives in the sense that he could do better in Ontario and Quebec, which the Conservatives need to win. They came fairly close to the last two elections. We forget that had things gone slightly differently in Quebec and Ontario for them, they might have won in 2019, they might have won in 2021. In both cases, they received more votes than the Liberals, although that doesn’t ultimately matter. But it does show the fact that they were competitive. Both Charest and Poilievre right now are roughly 34% nationally, is what Angus Reid suggested in their July 1820 sample. So they’re competitive. Pierre Poilievre could very much win a national election. The suggestion that there’s a takeaway, the analytic takeaway, is Fournier has noted that it doesn’t seem to be the case that his rhetoric is tanking him or would tank the party in the general election. So you’ve got to take them seriously. Keep in mind that Justin Trudeau is there growing flak and frustration with him and it doesn’t seem to be abating. And if the pandemic goes on, I should specify the covid 19 pandemic. We’re also staring down Monkeypox and inflation continues and economic troubles continue, then the governing party is inherently at a disadvantage because they’re the incumbents and happen on their watch. And so who does the world, who does the country turn to? Well, historically, they turn to the Conservatives as the alternative. So probably could have a good shot just by default, just by being there. And that could happen anytime between, let’s say, September, which is extraordinarily unlikely, and fall 2025, but it’s going to happen and troubles could extend to them or even get worse. So there’s very much a chance that Poilievre, if he wins, assuming he does, will be competitive in the next election and could very well become prime minister.

Jordan How much of that would be helped by him having Justin Trudeau to face down, who obviously instigates a lot of anger from the base of voters we’re talking about here? And could that be mitigated by, as a lot of people have discussed, Trudeau himself stepping down to make way for Chrystia Freeland or somebody else to sort of take a bit of that target away?

David Moscrop There’s a question I like to ask, is when was the last time a prime minister left their party in better shape than they found it?

Jordan I feel like I’m not going to like the answer to that.

David Moscrop Well, it doesn’t really happen, I think. Steven Harper led his party to defeat. Jean Christian left a party for Paul Martin. But Paul Martin wasn’t long for this world. We all remember what happened with Brian Mulroney down to two seats. John Turner was defeated after Pierre Trudeau left the party sort of limping in the 1980s. We probably have to go back to Pearson, who left the party in good shape for Pierre Trudeau in 68.

Jordan It’s a long time ago.

David Moscrop So it’s been a while. That’s my interpretation of people might disagree, but I would say 68 on top of it. When was the last time a prime minister won four elections in a row? It’s happened twice in our history, back to back in the 19th century, and 20s. McDonald did it and Laurier did it.

Jordan Not a lot of modern precedent.

David Moscrop No. And of course, it’s a very different system back then, it was effectively a two-party system and it was very different. But it’s a long shot, and that might be moderated by Trudeau leaving. I don’t think it would be significant, especially if the heir to the prime ministership wasn’t a particularly strong campaign or fresh face. You know that person would have to be free of the baggage of the Liberals. And it’s going to be hard to imagine any front-runner who is if they’ve been around for some time.

Jordan Right.

David Moscrop So I think it’s going to be tough. And if you look at the history of the countries to go back and map when the liberals win, when the conservatives win, the long history of the liberals governing for a period of time, people get frustrated and sick of them and saying, okay, it’s the conservatives term. It’s kind of been like the case for pretty much since confederation. The liberals get tired, they get arrogant, they get incompetent. And if you look at the current state of affairs, it looks broadly similar to that pattern that we see in the past, and then that’s the ballgame. So I think they’re just sort of timing out. Maybe they’ll squeeze another minority government out of this, but it seems less and less likely.

Jordan David, thank you so much for this.

David Moscrop My pleasure. Thanks for having me.

Jordan David Moscrop, political commentator, columnist, author of Too Dumb for Democracy and as he said, a sometimes political scientist. That was the big story. For more, head to thebigstorypodcast.ca. Talk to us by emailing [click here!]. Follow us on Twitter, and click like on everything we post. We are at @TheBigStoryFPN and call us, leave us a voicemail and say hello. The number is 416-935-5935. You can get this podcast anywhere you get them. We appreciate it when you get it somewhere You can leave us a rating or a review. Thanks for listening. I’m Jordan Heath-Rawlings. Have a safe weekend. We’ll talk Monday. Back to top of page