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

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.

There is definitely an undercurrent of people being pissed off because we lost a 25-point lead and picked fights with other conservatives

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.

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.