John Ivison: Conservatives want their leader to change. He might not wish to

A staple of Mark Carney’s stump speech during the election was the line that Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is the kind of politician who has never changed his mind since he was 17. “Who hasn’t changed their mind since they were 17?” the Liberal leader would mock. The attack was validated by Poilievre’s own words in his  interview with Jordan Peterson in December, in which he said he has been “saying precisely the same things” since he was a teenager. The Conservative leader’s supporters portray that as relentlessness; his detractors say it illustrates his intransigence and obstinacy. Now, Poilievre’s ability to adapt to changed circumstances will determine his political future, and perhaps whether he even has one. This week’s Conservative caucus meeting gave the leader the benefit of the doubt. But it is fair to say that doubts continue to hang over him like a sword suspended by a single horsehair. The caucus reaffirmed its commitment to the Reform Act, which gives it the power to replace the party leader. One Conservative MP, who said he heard on the doorsteps that people didn’t like the leader, said caucus has given Poilievre the chance to “show a bit of humility” and admit that changes are needed. If changes happen, he will be allowed to stay on. “But if he goes back to the old ways, where we have to ask to use the washrooms or are forced to use the slogans, then he’ll have a problem,” the MP said. “There is definitely an undercurrent of people being pissed off because we lost a 25-point lead and picked fights with other conservatives,” he added, referring to provincial premiers Tim Houston and Doug Ford. A common thread repeated by numerous MPs and veteran Conservatives is that Poilievre and his campaign manager, Jenni Byrne, are “not nice people,” and are more inclined to scorching earth than building bridges. There is an active backlash against Byrne (a former girlfriend of Poilievre’s) who made herself the hub to which all spokes were connected and is now being blamed for the campaign’s strategic and organizational shortcomings. “Ana wants her out,” said one senior Conservative, referring to Poilievre’s wife, Anaida, who multiple sources suggest is not comfortable having Byrne running his political career. Another MP said that Poilievre can be reasonable and businesslike, but has insisted on being his own attack dog. “When you’re a leader, your inner circle matters and Jenni does not encourage Pierre’s more compassionate side,” said one source. Poilievre has preferred to emphasize the additional 23 seats Conservatives won in the election, with the party’s highest share of the vote since 1988. Both he and Byrne are said to stand by the decision to keep the media off the campaign plane. “They believe the best team lost,” said one person familiar with internal discussions. Poilievre told caucus he acknowledges a change in tone is required. The question among those who have known him over his two decades in federal politics, is whether he is capable of changing, and whether 2025 might prove to be a ceiling of support, rather than a floor. “I think Pierre believes this (post-election challenge) is about ticking off things on a checklist. But it’s not. It requires an entire mindset shift,” said one veteran Conservative. Poilievre’s supporters in caucus point to the platform, which was well received and was very much Poilievre’s brainchild. They say he is committed to “personal growth” and refer to two episodes that showed his more tender side: the moment in the leaders’ debate when he said he regretted not being able to spend more time with the people he met at Conservative rallies who told him their stories and struggles; and an appearance on the Knowledge Project entrepreneurship podcast with Shane Parrish in which he discussed how becoming  a father to a child with special needs had made him a more empathetic person. Poilievre positively lit up when talking about his non-verbal, six-year-old daughter, Valentina, and has never appeared more vulnerable than when he talked about his concerns for her future. But that is not the side of him that most voters saw. To his detractors, the Conservatives were the Nasty Party and Poilievre embodied its narrow sympathies. The consequence was opinion polling that on the eve of the election showed the Liberals with commanding leads among the over-60s (typically a strong voting cohort for the Conservatives); among women; and, among people with a university education. A  post-election survey  by Abacus Data suggested Carney was favoured on just about every metric of perceived competence and leadership, except “meanness,” where Poilievre had a 2:1 advantage. The Conservative game plan was designed to disrupt the status quo and speak to frustrations about affordability. As the Tory leader pointed out in his concession speech, the party “won the big debates of our time” on the carbon tax, inflation, housing and crime, forcing the Liberals to match Conservative policies. But the campaign failed to adjust and address the existential fears about the country being absorbed by Donald Trump’s expansionism that emerged after the U.S. president’s inauguration. A plurality of Canadians wanted a trusted captain to restore order, not a rabble-rouser intent on disrupting it. That failure to accommodate shifting circumstances is prompting questions inside the party about whether a 45-year-old man can truly change. As someone for whom that relatively spritely age is in the rearview mirror, I’d suggest that Poilievre has softened and matured from the cartoonish figure who won the leadership three years ago. But Poilievre is as responsible as anyone for the polarization of our politics. On the one side, we have the censorious bullies of the left, who reject nuanced debate, in favour of accusations of bias, racism and bigotry. On the other side, there is an angry group of people who feel they are the losers of culture wars that have imposed values on their country they don’t share. They marshal facts that confirm their prejudices and diminish evidence that contradicts them. Rules and institutions are demonized and the national interest sublimated to tribal concerns. This is the party’s most hardcore base, and I suspect Poilievre cannot evolve to be the calm, serious leader he needs to be because he is one of them. National Post jivison@criffel.ca

• John Ivison: Mark Carney starts speaking Trump’s language
• John Ivison: Conservatives used a meat grinder on the Liberals, but needed a wooden stake

Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.