Can Poilievre win over ordinary folk? Lars Hagberg/AFP/Getty Images
Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, used to be the future, once. In October 2023, he posted a YouTube video of his interview in an orchard in British Columbia with the unworldly editor of a local newspaper. As he devoured a shiny red apple, Poilievre bit chunks out of Donald Urquhart, who had challenged him in a quavering way about whether he was on a “populist pathway” and had “picked a page out of the Donald Trump book”. What did that mean? Who believed it? Urquhart flubbed his replies.
One obsequious biographer called it the “crunch that was heard around the world”. Elon Musk and Ben Shapiro praised his vim. Poilievre suggested that the Right could make headway in cultures that appeared stacked against them by aggressively rebutting mainstream media. Few Canadians read Urquhart’s Times Chronicle, but hundreds of thousands saw Poilievre’s alpha demolition of him on YouTube and shared it on what was then Twitter. By 2024, he had already put out 3,000 social media videos and amassed 500,000 subscribers to his YouTube channel and a million Twitter followers. He repeatedly promised to “Axe the Tax”, “Build the Homes” and “Stop the Crime”.
This visceral style thrilled the Anglophone Right. Mainstream conservative parties in Britain and Australia wanted to learn how he had won a hearing in a centrist country that usually leans mildly Left. As recently as January, James Heale wrote in The Spectator that “there are few party leaders who excite British Conservatives more. Both Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick have visited Canada to try to learn from his playbook.” No wonder: Poilievre was then 20 points ahead in the polls and preparing for a federal election in which he was an “existential threat” to Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government. Australian conservatives were no less admiring: one explained that Poilievre had forged a “pragmatic working-class conservatism” that had enticed voters from the woke Liberals and socialist NDP. It was a good omen for his Australian counterpart Peter Dutton, a battler championing cost-of-living issues against a Labour government that represented only the affluent.
These discussions of Poilievre’s success now read oddly. Donald Trump’s re-election should have confirmed his passage to power this year as all but inevitable, especially once the President’s posturing on tariffs hastened Trudeau’s resignation as prime minister. Instead, it has been a meteor strike on the platform Poilievre has spent years putting together. Although pollsters in Canada are a fractious bunch, they currently converge in finding that Poilievre’s lead has dwindled to a tie with the Liberals. At the federal election on 29 April, Mark Carney, the newly appointed Liberal leader and Trudeau’s successor as Prime Minister, is set to win enough seats to form a minority or even a majority government.
What explains Poilievre’s sudden implosion? In a scathing but comprehensive recent biography, Ripper: The Making of Pierre Poilievre, the historian Mark Bourrie points out that his thinking on most subjects has not advanced much since adolescence. Poilievre’s energy in content creation, which has naturally impressed the Anglophone Right, may turn out not to compensate for his intellectual rigidity.
As a young activist and student in late Nineties Calgary, Poilievre absorbed from Milton Friedman’s writings the lesson that the state was the enemy of liberty and prosperity. The job of politicians was simply to shrink its demands, then to get out of the way of the market. There was a partisan edge to this faith: Poilievre shared the conviction of many Albertans that the eagerness of Liberal governments to siphon off its wealth for their voter base in eastern Canada explained the wild fluctuations of their prairie province’s economy, which depended heavily on the extraction of oil and gas.
After helping the insurgent Reform Party to absorb the moribund Progressive Conservatives and form a new Conservative Party of Canada, Poilievre entered Parliament in 2005. He served as a minister in Stephen Harper’s government and in 2022 finally became leader of his party in opposition. Throughout that time, he consistently condemned efforts to grow the state. He opposed subsidised daycare (better to cut taxes so one parent could afford to stay at home), benefits for indigenous people (too dependent on handouts in his view), and payouts to furloughed workers during the pandemic.
His libertarianism finally caught on during the cost-of-living crisis that set in after the Covid pandemic, when his calls to “axe the tax” on carbon consumption suggested a sensitivity to the plight of ordinary Canadians. And though he had once written them off as incorrigible progressives, his slogans now resonated particularly with younger people, who polls reveal are disenchanted with and even embarrassed by Canada. As Harper’s minister for electoral reform, Poilievre had stopped the Elections Canada agency from trying to boost voting by the young. Yet the spike in Canada’s already high house prices and the inflation during the pandemic led to a new assessment: the young would now hear the argument that the state was preventing them from enjoying the lifestyles of their parents. Poilievre explained that Trudeau’s tax on carbon consumption generated the “Justinflation” that put independence and homeownership beyond their reach.
In particular, Poilievre tailored his message to men in their twenties, around 35% of whom now still live with their parents. Though in his forties when he became leader of the opposition, he began to resemble the denizens of the transnational manosphere. He ditched his nerdish spectacles, dyed his hair and wore tight t-shirts to emphasise his gym-honed physique. Meme-makers digitally inflated his muscles to turn him into a grinning, tax-cutting chad. He praised and had periodic chats with the psychiatrist Jordan Peterson: their last interview has more than five million views.
Yet while Poilievre fraternised with culture warriors, he managed to come across as merely “based” rather than extreme: a sardonic opponent of woke follies. In 2022, his defiant backing for protestors who blockaded Ottawa in an attempt to overturn restrictions on travel for unvaccinated people won him the conservative leadership. Poilievre had taken his shots, but argued that “inflammatory” contempt for the truckers was emptying grocery stores and pharmacies. He also attacked “whacko” experiments with the decriminalisation of street drugs, which had supposedly turned the downtowns of cities such as Vancouver into open-air drug dens. The Liberals were ideologues who had “broken” Canada, leaving many of its people “just hanging on by a thread”.
His commonsense pitch has attracted conservatives in Britain and Australia because its unapologetic materialism is free of MAGA’s theocratic flourishes. Poilievre’s adoptive mother was a conservative Catholic who took him to demonstrations outside abortion clinics; as a young activist, he mixed with Creationist Protestants. Yet as leader of the opposition, he reversed his earlier opposition to gay marriage and has deflected rote Liberal accusations that his party would restrict abortion rights. His social vision is a trad yet highly generic ideal of suburban contentment: so much so that the stock footage chosen to illustrate one of his speeches on “our home” mainly came from the American Midwest.
Poilievre ensured his indictments of the Liberals were never fact checked. He has systematically avoided interviews with journalists from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or newspapers, shrewdly recognising that the audience for such legacy media in Canada as in other Western societies is greying and dwindling. Instead of “Justin’s journos”, he favoured an archipelago of alternative news organisations. Although Canada’s print media leans centre-right and is largely owned by Americans, Conservatives these days like to imagine themselves bucking elite censorship. Websites such as Ezra Levant’s Rebel News, the Post Millennial, and Candice Malcolm’s True North offer their readers the samizdat truths the elite do not want you to read. Although often dismissed as Maple MAGA, a northern outpost of Trumpy misinformation, they are characteristically Canadian. Levant resembles Poilievre in being a rock-ribbed Albertan conservative who has devoted his career to defending the West’s fossil fuel industries against effete greens from eastern Canada. Poilievre promised to reward these truth-tellers by giving them government subsidies and defunding the English-language operations of the CBC.
These sites amplified Poilievre’s view of Canada as a “broken” country and broadcast it to the rest of the world. Musk said that “Canadian truckers rule”; more considered commentators represented them as blue-collar rebels against the “laptop classes” who had clamoured for the lockdowns that did not affect them personally. Trump’s belief that Canada is a fentanyl dealer’s paradise owes much to productions such as the film Vancouver is Dying, a safari of drug taking and homelessness on the city’s Downtown East Side, which now has 4.5 million views on YouTube. Its maker Aaron Gunn is now running for election with Poilievre’s Conservatives.
This convergence in rhetoric became a grave problem once Trump started his pantomime campaign to annex Canada, to which Poilievre has not yet found a convincing response. Much of his base in the West admires the President’s politics and is not much fussed by his talk of annexation, given that for years it has flirted with the idea of Alberta’s secession from Canada. That might explain why his comments on Trump have been too muted to please many Canadians outside Alberta, while nonetheless being “negative” enough to annoy him. Doug Ford, the conservative but undogmatic premier of the province of Ontario, has meanwhile stolen his limelight with his theatrical promises to retaliate against American tariffs. Poilievre needs to win many federal seats in Ontario to form a majority government, but Ford has pointedly held back from his forthcoming election campaign.
The other problem was that Poilievre could not stop harping on about Trudeau’s carbon tax — even though Mark Carney reduced the carbon tax to zero in one of his first acts as Prime Minister. Rather than finding a new issue to campaign on, he has salvaged the podium stands and campaign merchandise that promise to “axe the tax” by warning of Carney’s plans to resurrect the tax if elected. His calls for a beefed up military aside, he is still recommending a shrunken state to a public that seeks protection against a foreign menace.
During the years in which he targeted Trudeau for personally breaking Canada, Poilievre apparently devoted little thought to the fact that he might have to fight someone else in an election. The Conservatives have been left to test attack lines on Carney in real time. Perhaps he is a well-heeled “globalist” not truly committed to the fight for Canada’s economic independence. Or maybe he is “Marx Carney”, who helped to craft Trudeau’s socialist policies. The website Juno News reported that one of his children is a “hard-Left” trans activist who had sought treatment at the “discredited” Tavistock Clinic in London. The implication was that Carney — like Kamala Harris — would be more interested in fussing about pronouns than in ordinary folk.
Poilievre did not authorise these attacks on his rival’s family — although the founder of Juno News is a favourite journalist of his. But they seem likely to hurt the Conservative leader all the same. The tactics of his outriders encourage a perception he desperately needs to dispel: that the Conservatives share the feral methods of MAGA Republicanism. The sneering vigour with which Poilievre pitched into Trudeau online was the making of him, but is easily cast as divisive now that Trump has put the very existence of the nation under threat — rhetorically at least. Although the party has tried to respond by upping the patriotic content of its sloganeering — it is now marching under the resonant but ambiguous banner of “Canada First for a Change” — it has not changed its fundamentally negative approach.
Poilievre’s aggressive style still plays well with angry young men, but is promoting a drift towards a two-party system that promises to benefit the Liberals. That is because Liberals are recovering in the polls not by poaching Conservative voters, who largely remain loyal to Poilievre, but by hoovering up the Leftist supporters of the New Democratic Party, who may reluctantly vote for the banker Carney to keep him out of power. The recent announcement that reporters will not be allowed to travel with Poilievre during the forthcoming election campaign shows he has no intention of changing his preferred style of communication.
Poilievre’s problems should remind his international admirers that a mastery of the medium cannot compensate for a rigid message. It is easy enough to borrow his online playbook. Nothing could be more Canadian than the taut videos in which Robert Jenrick puts on casual but body-conscious clothing to speak fearlessly about his broken country. Yet in modernising their rhetoric, conservatives need to ensure that it remains true to the distinctive traditions of their own country. Poilievre could not have guessed that a majority of Canadians would come to hear Trump’s voice in the libertarian rallying calls of Alberta. But the furious persistence with which he repeated them probably means it is too late to correct that impression.
Michael Ledger-Lomas is a historian of religion from Vancouver, British Columbia and the author of Queen Victoria: This Thorny Crown (2021). He is currently writing a book about the Edwardians and the gods.
LedgerLomasM 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“Although Canada’s print media leans centre-right….” – The author betrays his ignorance of Canada-on-the-ground. All the legacy media in Canada is far-left. The flagship of the fleet, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., is literally as far left as Bernie Sanders.
Any hope of redemption for the MSM has been killed by Trudeau’s actual funding of media that toe the Liberal party line. We’re told by an ex-editor of Post Media (owner of many mid-size Canadian dailies) that hundreds of millions of dollars – the difference between existence and not – rest on their backing of Liberal policy.
IKR – journo never read the CA govt press
! – makes NPR or the BBC look like grown ups.
I call them Pravda. They love talking to me.
Well stated. I was just about to right something similar. The obvious bias of most of our MSM, and in particular CBC, CTV and The Star, especially since the election started, makes gibberish of the rest of this article. Case in point, the lack of coverage of Carney’s plagiarism at Oxford in all three Canadian outlets contrasted with multiple UK papers making this front page news. Or the hiring of often reviled and sometimes fired “progressive” Rachel Gilmour as fact-checker for the election on CTV. A ridiculous piece of writing.
Don’t agree with much of this. The surge of the Liberals comes down to the fact that a lot of people were reluctantly admitting that Trudeau’s liberals have been a disaster and that the conservatives are the only viable alternative. When Trudeau resigned they were relieved to have an excuse to return to the liberal fold even though Carney is a like for like replacement of Trudeau in terms of vision though with a much better CV, worse French but better rhetoric. I am ashamed by how gullible my fellow Canadians are.
They are not gullible. They are bought and paid for.
Ugh. Almost all of this is nonsense – except for Poilievre’s failure to be more forcefully critical of Trump. Canadian voters in Ontario and Quebec want political leaders screaming from the rooftop that Trump is an existential threat to the nation. They want fiery rhetoric and righteous indignation. The 25% tariffs will deal a savage blow to the economy and voters want more fire and brimstone. Poilievre has so far failed to deliver that. The rest of the essay is nonsense. Poilievre is a standard, pragmatic conservative politician. Nothing more. Maybe that makes him a radical right-winger in today’s political environment.
I agree. Poilievre has been too quiet on Trump and his tariffs for too long.
Perhaps he can add up? so if CA sends $595bn exports to USA and USA sends $356bn to CA and both sides add on 25% import tariff – who is the loser in nominal or actual terms? Thought not – i expect a % of Unherd readers can do grade 4 math but doubt any of their journos can. Life is so easy when 2+2 =5 eh?
The problem with populists though is that they love to create a fuss that gets people riled. The reality is though (as is rather obvious with Trump) they’re empty vessels & we all know about them & noise. Robert Jenrick gets mentioned. Jenrick is the classic case. He’s moved from being slightly on the left of the British Conservative Party to trying to be an ultra right winger.
it’s funny though because he isn’t naturally bone & his feeble attempts at creating a fuss around immigration etc. just make him look foolish
Me thinks the guy has been listening to the legacy media a bit to much. The rot is well set in.
It’s not that central Canada wants to attack trump, though they do, but the hog trough us thick and taxing one jurisdiction and buying votes in another works quite well.
And of course, a month is a long time in politics. Carny is already at the avoid debates and media he’s doesn’t own stage. It will be interesting.
Pretty funny when carny tried to emulate pp.
But will it affect all regions in the same way? Will Alberta feel the blow as greatly as Ontario and Quebec or vice versa. Trump isn’t stupid. He understands that in a big country, regional economic interests matter. The American system was designed with this conflict in mind, hence the bicameral legislature. To my understanding, Canada’s parliament is more European style, thus more easily dominated by pure population. Maybe Canadians are a unified enough culture that this doesn’t matter, but then again maybe they’re not, and Trump is trying to pit the regions against each other and generate internal conflict.
Don’t ask me why he’s doing it. I have no clue. He can’t actually annex any part of Canada. The US can’t annex anything because adding a state is basically a political impossibility given the red/blue division in the US. Neither side has the 2/3 majority needed to add states. My best guess is that he’s just stoking nationalist sentiment in an attempt to prevent the globalist blob that opposed him in the US from finding safe harbor in foreign nations. If every government is expected to be nationalist to some degree, the globalist blob will find it harder to influence any country and the globalist order will break down further. I admit its a vague and indirect motivation, but it’s the best guess I have.
Yes indeed – bit like “accidentally” inviting a hostile foreign power to add its journalist into deliberations about those oh so lovable, cuddly and cute Iranian-Houthi militias. It doesn’t matter if the Canucks vote with their heads and join USA or with their hearts and go nationalist – either ways its a lose -lose for Mmes carney and trudeau and their islamo-fascist paymasters.
Poilievre was never going be popular in Ontario or Quebec, it was Trudeau who was unpopular, Poilievre was just riding that wave. With Carney the liberals are again soaring, thankfully at the expense of the NDP and Bloc who both serve little purpose anyways. Canada is a centrist country, always has been, that’s why the liberals are the natural governing party, especially since Mckenzie King, with brief interludes under the conservatives such as Mulroney who was also a centrist and moderately conservative. Even Harper was a moderate conservative. The nonsense and rhetoric coming from Poilievre won’t fly in the maritimes and central Canada, he stays away from the mainstream media for a reason, he can’t connect with the centrist and moderate Canadian which is the majority. Poilievre comes across as a dork when he speaks on national TV, makes people cringe. When the Conservatives chose a moderate leader and unifier, like Mulroney who was one of the best PMs of all-time, they may win again at some point. But all the right wing nonsense which may be popular in Alberta will never fly in 80% of Canada. That’s why the liberals will win a majority again.
I predict the Liberals will win a minority government, but the Bloc Quebecois will have the balance of power, their popularity is surging in Quebec and they have a very astute leader. Same situation as in the 90’s.
The bloc is crashing in Quebec as we speak, the liberals are surging in the polls, the mood in Quebec has changed alot since the tariff war. The NDP is facing a wipeout everywhere, they may have only a few seats left. Of course there is still a month to go.
This comment will age badly. Liberals are no longer centrist. Carney might squeak out a minority and will flounder. A hellish union with the NDP will be in the cards and having an activist judiciary and senate appointed by Trudeau also thumb the scales but he will be massively unpopular. The old adage that the Liberals are the natural ruling party doesn’t square how far left the party has drifted and how disastrous their economic and social policies have been for everyday Canadians. Young people loathe the Liberal brand.
Agree with everything you say except Mulroney being the best PM’s of all time. He effectively destroyed Canada by dropping FIRA and imposing NAFTA. Prior to him we had a sizable manufacturing base and a Canadian identity.
Don’t forget the massive trade surpluses that have DT so riled up. NAFTA was great for Canada.
Cut off the taps on their funding and I’m pretty sure they will find religion.
You are half correct. The liberal ndp alliance has nurtured the eastern electorate into a state of robber baron, pillaging the rest of Canada for their benefit.
So now you’re dealing with voters who need to go to fat farm.
The ones milking the mana from heaven are the only ones he doesn’t connect to.
Was interested in reading this article but thought I’d pop to comments first to see what the BTL’s resident Canucks say – and, well, I think I can skip it!
2 questions for you Jim:
Is Doug Ford a legitimate conservative, or more in the mould of Kinzinger/Cheney?
And are most Canadians truly upset about Trump’s actions and rhetoric? I’d have thought they would perceive Trump as trolling Trudeau and the liberal establishment rather than attacking Canada as a whole.
Doug Ford is a pragmatist and is “conservative” in what passes for conservatism in Canada which is, essentially “Red Toryism.” IMHO, Canadians are very upset, though I really appreciated the commentator who pointed out the virtual constitutional impossibility of American annexation. He also noted how tariffs will create regional tensions, and that seems accurate.
I am not very familiar with Canadian politics. But Trump’s personality foibles are well known. These include his thin skin. Perhaps Poilievre is positioning himself as the possible future prime minister of Canada – the man who would have to deal with Trump. So he avoids direct confrontation. This might seem a reasonable risk electorally, since the Conservative Party is the patriotic party of Canada, so he has nothing to prove in that respect. Whereas the liberal-progressive types are notably global and are having to noisily discover the virtue of patriotism. Notice though, that when Trump declared that he would prefer to deal with Carney than Poilievre, Poilievre lost no time in pointing out what a pushover Carney was likely to be.
I agree that the article is mostly nonsense.
Well that’s interesting. Who can say if Trump actually prefers to deal with Carney. It’s impossible to tell how much, if any, of what he says on a given subject at a given time is true, and even if it is true at the time, like as not he’ll change his mind six times in the next week. It’s an oddly effective way to keep one’s opponents off balance and guessing and I’ve come to believe it’s far more intentional than I suspected.
It’s just assumed Trump would side with the populist, nationalist leaders in other countries and favor them rather than the globalists. I myself am guilty of this assumption. It bears remembering though that Trump isn’t an ideologue. How much he really believes in populist causes is anyone’s guess. What’s not in dispute is his strong sense of nationalism. Everything he has done suggests he is dead serious about “America First”. He’s trying to get what he thinks is best for the nation and it’s people, not any other nation or other populist causes. If he thinks tilting a foreign election one way or the other will benefit the US, he’ll do it, even if that party is hostile to him. What his angle is and how he thinks it will benefit the US, I don’t know, but he has a lot of people around him who are a lot smarter than I am. Just because I can’t see the plan doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
“He has systematically avoided interviews with journalists from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or newspapers, …” The CBC is 100% funded by the Liberal government and the mainstream (i.e. print and TV) media are roughly 50% financed by the government. Poiliviere has no obligation to give access to media that have a financial incentive to oppose him, and make sure he does not form a government.
This morning a CBC program host directly said Poliviere leads “the party aligned with Trump.” I hear this kind of commentary every day on this station.
He was aligned with Trump, until tariffs man started his economic war, so now Poilievre is in disarray trying to distance himself.
You’re in the war room are you.
You’re 100% right, Kim. Watching the CBC requires an air bag because it’s just a propaganda arm for the Liberals. The last time it reported something in an impartial manner was when it re-ran The Beachcombers.
Then there’s carney. Successful, highly educated and polished. It shows that you can in fact polish a t**d. He is Greta in a suit. Ursula von der Leyen of the Americas. Schwab reinvented.
” may turn out not to compensate for his intellectual rigidity.” or he is consistent and not swayed by each passing fad.
“Although Canada’s print media leans centre-right”
No, false. They tend to be leftist, ‘woke’ and are obviously hostile to Poilievre and the Conservatives.
“Poilievre promised to reward these truth-tellers by giving them government subsidies and defunding the English-language operations of the CBC.”
No, the opposite.
The current Liberal government subsidizes much of the media, making them effectively government employees.
Poilirvre wants to stop government funding of the media.
Poilevre will win. Easily.
I wish you were right, Mike. Once Trudeau resigned, it seemed as if there was an alternative to the Trudeau Liberals. Sadly, the party “crowned” Carney, a JT without charisma, heavily financially conflicted (Brooksfield), but supported by the bureaucrats in Ottawa, the MSM, and the lunatic Left in downtown Toronto, along with the other, usual suspects. Should we do so, we should all be taken out to a Sugar Shack for a proper whipping’.
I recently discovered that all Canada geese respond to the name Justin. But why?
Same iq.
Both are ubuiquitous in Canada. Both have grating voices, befoul anything they come near. Most public areas in our city are unusable due to the crap they’ve left behind. National pests that should be eradicated from public life, but protected by a false “nationalism”.
Trump was needlesly antagonistic to Canada.
Nah, I think he toned it down. Ottawa has shown its neck to the us in a bid to land lock commodities and now Canada is so vulnerable because of federal policy.
The globalists really believed the end of time had arrived and everything was free.
Trump has no intention of annexing Canada, by the way, not in the immediate future at least. It’s basically impossible for the USA to annex anything right now because the political process for adding states requires approval from a 2/3 majority of the Senate AND the approval of 2/3 of the individual states. Good luck with that. D.C. and Puerto Rico have actually been trying, and because they’re perceived as solidly blue, the red states and their senators won’t touch this. I’m sure Trump realizes this. The US could annex places as non-state territories like Guam and Puerto Rico, but those are tiny islands, one of which would prefer to be a state but can’t get the US to accept them, the other of which would probably prefer to be an independent nation but has even less chance to get the US to accept.
More likely, Trump is just goading Canadians to stoke nationalism. After all, if they start taking the border seriously as a result of antagonism towards the US, that gives the US excuse to do the same, and further erodes open borders and free movement, another little bit of pullback from globalism towards nationalism. That suits him just fine. He’s not interested in protecting the ‘rules based order’ or pretending that such a thing ever even existed.
Maybe its time to do some “free movement” the other way – why not deport the TdA and other CA sponsored gangs back to CA c/w large bags of siezed fentanyl to sell cheap to the local kids? I expect the Canucks would turn on Mme’s trudeau and carney all the quicker if their kids were ODing all over the place. Sauce for the goose and all that.
Our kids are already ODing all over the place. This is a crisis in both countries, so I’m not sure why Trump is trying to blame it on Canada.
Canada was annexed years ago economically with globalizers’ ‘free’ trade agreements which now both Liberals and Conservative governments endorse. The majority of our core ‘means of production’ industries are not Canadian owned businesses or public assets anymore: oil, pipelines, mining, railways, vehicle manufacturing, chemicals, farm equipment, lumber.
Trump certainly doing his best to kickstart making Canada and Europe Great Again. A closer Canada/Europe relationship too now in clear view.
It’s an electoral pattern that will repeat. Even Farage in the UK recognises the peril with aligning too closely with the Orange One and his sycophants.
Every advanced economy needs commodities.
Canada has them.
We just have to be able to defend them.
Trump sometimes seems to want to head up a Right International, but he may find he undermines the right in many places if the US becomes an adversary.
Nah they are all cowards.
After the election the obsequious will commence.
Bring back Red Toryism.
Basically, Carny is a red tory. He has borrowed many of the conservative programs and is leading the liberals to the right, first steps were the shrinking of the cabinet from 37 under Trudeau to 24, and the scrapping of the carbon tax, the latter a conservative policy.
Until he’s not. His centrist pivot is purely pragmatic. He’s not saving Canada because he’s passionate or has any allegiance, but rather to salvage the globalist Petri dish to the North of the Orange Menace. A whole host of globalist leaders are counting on him to rescue this dying era. He will likely squeak out a minority. Reality will come rushing at his policies like freight train. Only so far this toxic can will be kicked down the road now…..
Wait a minute. This piece catalogs Poilievre’s alleged sins but somehow Trump broke the right? What are you talking about? Either way, if Canadians want to go from the bad that was Trudeau to the worse that is Carney, let them. Eventually, they’ll start clamoring to be the 51st state instead of being trolled by Trump about it.
That is the irony. The Overton window approaches.
How does an article catalog Pierre’s alleged shortcomings but title itself as how Trump broke the right? If Canadians want to go from the bad that was Trudeau to the worse that is Carney, let them. Eventually, they’ll be talking about becoming the 51st state, not that most Americans want that to happen.
Under 10% of Canadians would support it, the whole idea is nonsense, won’t happen, it’s all babble talk.
Surely there is abundant middle-ground between Trudeau/Carney, and the 51st state.
CA is even more divided than USA IMO… only reason rural Canucks aren’t kicking back is their “govts” one party national socialist state has its reach limited by geography and geology. Outside the cities and esp in the frozen states their writ is dead. Inside the cities the national socialist state is unable to compete with the Outlaws, the Red n Whites AND the relatively recent import from USA the Mongols plus a load of larger but per-member weaker non 1% er gangs, eg EoA, UNg, Indian Posse etc etc. Canuck junta’s mentor – Herr Schickelgrüber, is probably spinning in his grave. Good opportunity for their lackey Ed “Barney Greenway” Millipede to put two opposing magnets over his fuhrer’s grave and bask in the low input electricity it generates (assuming Bad Ed knows how to wire up, regulate and rectify the outputs!) CA is def changing – they even have Sikh street gangs. There is no longer a Saskatoon Flames Ice Hockey team – but there is an SF cricket team. How do Ms kate carney or Mme trudeau feel about that? Trumps jibing will make the few remaining Canucks who work for a living have a good think – doubt they’ll Rush to embrace open society politics right now BUT once the natsoc chickens have roosted and bred a few more times i expect a poitical awakening is inevitable.
Why do you insist on writing in gibberish?
Canadians can simply compare the site of Carney, PM and the site of Conservative Party. First one has concrete policies and the other outdated slogans. PP was great at bashing Trudeau ( great moments of joy during dark times for which I’m grateful for) but didn’t rise to the current occasion. And honestly his pugnacious style has always bothered me. Unfortunately, we’ll get a minority gov’t in either case. The Liberals will need NDP which will block all economical initiatives, and Conservatives will stay alone and won’t be able to do anything anyway
Carney lifted Poilievre’s platform from under his nose and then went on an expertly curated PR tour, dumping bundles of dough into the steady stream of campaign ads that find themselves in my face every day. Doesn’t hurt that the Liberals own Canadian MSM.
Poilievre’s team must have been asleep at the wheel, but why? It was obvious – from miles back – that things would play out this way.
Was it by design? The CPC are known to be WEF cucks just like the LPC.
Does the CPC have something up their sleeve?
It’s hard to comprehend how fast and how easy they’ve squandered what they had. We’ll all pay dearly for it as Carney will deliver the fatal blow to the Canada we once knew.
Not just campaign advertisements. “Government” advertisements promoting various programs are rampant. Paid by taxpayers for the liberals.
What is the”,, right” message? Carney is a “Canadian” by one citizenship, but he’s Oxford and Davos at heart. If Trump spins out more modest tariffs, the issue shoould be, which Canadian candidate can work with Trump. It isnt The Loan Officer who has club privileges innLondon.
Error: the Ottawa truckers were not protesting COVID vacation restrictions. They were protesting mandatory shots the Liberal gov’t imposed on them. And they were mostly not truckers and not in Ottawa.
The protest included people across the country of all colours and backgrounds, forget the ‘left-right-centre’ – standing by highways in sub zero weather having flags having a very happy time saying ‘freedom’.
The Liberals refused to talk with them, Trudeau said they were racists and misogynists. Poilievre and some other Conservatives did meet them. The CBC said the Ruskies were behind it.