After Carney's Win: Will Poilievre Choose Division or Cooperation?

Canada’s latest federal election delivered a surprise upset. Former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney led the Liberals to a minority government victory, securing 169 out of 343 seats. The once-favored Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre fell short, even losing Poilievre’s own long-held seat in Parliament. For many Canadians, this result was as much a rejection of divisive politics as it was an endorsement of Carney’s steady leadership. Now, all eyes turn to the Conservatives in opposition. Will Poilievre double down on the partisan, Trump-style tactics that energized his base but alienated others, or will he pivot to a more constructive and unifying approach in Parliament? This reflection explores these two diverging paths for Poilievre’s Conservative Party – and what’s at stake for Canada’s political future.

A Historic Election and a Clear Message

Just months ago, most pundits were betting on a Conservative landslide. Early 2025 polls showed Poilievre with a towering lead – as much as 25 points ahead of the Liberals. Many assumed he would be Canada’s next prime minister. But a dramatic campaign saw the narrative flipped on its head. The turning point was an escalation of U.S. President Donald Trump’s rhetoric against Canada – from trade wars to outrageous talk of annexation – which rocked Canadian politics. Carney seized the moment, casting himself as the steady hand who would stand up to Trump’s bullying. Poilievre, by contrast, struggled with a public image “aligned with Trump” and the American MAGA movement. As ballots were counted, it became clear that Canadian voters had sent a clear message against extreme partisan divisiveness.

Carney’s victory speech struck a unifying tone. “We are over the shock of the American betrayal, but we must never forget the lessons,” he said, urging Canadians to “take care of each other” in the face of outside threats. In the end, the Liberals won 168-169 seats (about 43% of the popular vote) to the Conservatives’ ~144 seats (41%). It’s a “razor-thin” mandate, but still a “historic watershed” for a country pushed to rally together. The collapse of support for smaller parties – the NDP and Bloc Québécois lost dozens of seats – showed that swing voters coalesced around the Liberals to block what they saw as an extremist threat. “I voted Liberal because Poilievre sounds like a mini-Trump to me,” admitted one Toronto voter, expressing concern over Trump’s tariff threats. After a decade of Trudeau’s rule, many Canadians held their noses and chose Carney’s stability over Poilievre’s volatility.

For Poilievre and the Conservatives, this upset is a sobering wake-up call. Poilievre’s combative strategy backfired in crucial areas: he energized his right-wing base, but “drove people who would have ordinarily voted for other political parties to the Liberal party,” as one veteran Conservative insider lamented. Now, with the campaign over, Poilievre faces a crossroads. Will he interpret the election as a cue to moderate his tone and work with the new government, or will he dig in deeper with the combative style that got him this far? Below, we explore these two paths:

Path 1: Divisive Rhetoric and Partisan Obstruction

Poilievre made his name as a brash partisan fighter, and there’s a real possibility he will continue down this road in opposition. Throughout his career, he was often referred to as an Conservative “attack dog”, known for slashing critiques and an uncanny ability to dominate a news cycle. His 2025 campaign often felt like Trump’s playbook adapted for Canada: Poilievre “leaned heavily on an aggressive approach that energised the party base”, embracing culture-war rhetoric and attacking “gatekeepers” and institutions at every turn. He even borrowed Trump’s branding, adopting the slogan “Canada First” in a nod to Trump’s America First ethos. During one viral moment, Poilievre coolly ate an apple while parrying a reporter’s question about emulating Trump – a clip his campaign proudly blasted out on social media as proof of his media-bashing prowess.

If Poilievre chooses to stay this course, we can expect more of the same polarizing tactics in Parliament. This divisive path would likely feature fiery rhetoric, personal attacks on Liberal ministers, and obstruction of Carney’s legislative agenda at every turn. Poilievre might double down on wedge issues – hammering the Liberals on taxes, inflation, and immigration – with a tone of relentless negativity. The risk, however, is that this approach could deepen Canada’s regional and ideological divides. Campaigning on anger brought Poilievre tantalizingly close to power, but in the end Canadians (especially in urban and suburban ridings) recoiled from what felt to many like MAGA-style politics. “He’s divisive. He’s polarizing. He’s so aggressive,” one Conservative insider conceded, noting that this approach “alienated potential voters” in the election.

Indeed, comparisons to Trump have dogged Poilievre and would only intensify if he continues with combative partisan behavior. Experts warn that Poilievre’s tone often mirrors Trump’s. “The kind of aggressive, personal language that Trump uses… is the kind of language Poilievre uses as well,” observes Prof. Greg Elmer, who studies political communications. During the campaign, Poilievre tried to walk a fine line – distancing himself from Trump’s most extreme positions, yet holding fast to a confrontational, anti-elite media style. It proved an “awkward recalibration” that didn’t stop his slide in the polls. As Trump’s antics escalated, Poilievre found it increasingly hard to avoid being painted with the same brush. Even some of his allies drew parallels; Alberta premier Danielle Smith openly remarked that Poilievre’s perspective “would be very much in sync with… the new direction in America,” essentially likening him to Canada’s version of the Trump movement.

Sticking with this divisive approach would likely reinforce public fears that Poilievre is a Canadian incarnation of Trumpism. Already, polls show Canadians are wary. According to the non-partisan Angus Reid Institute, fully one-third of Canadians (36%) believe “all the political parties are too extreme in their views,” and nearly half of self-identified centrist voters feel politically “orphaned” by the choices on offer. Much of this perception of extremism has centered on Poilievre. “Many Canadians are wary of extremism and don’t want to see their country go the way of polarized American politics,” explains pollster Shachi Kurl. This sentiment was borne out on election day, when a record number of voters turned out early to make their voices heard. In crucial Ontario suburbs and among young parents – key swing demographics – support for Poilievre fell sharply as his rhetoric heated up. These Canadians were turned off by the “firebrand” persona and what they perceived as imported U.S.-style partisanship. If Poilievre continues on a warpath in opposition, he risks cementing that negative image. He would likely face constant comparisons to Trump and the MAGA movement, a poisonous association in a country where a clear majority despises Trump’s brand of politics.

Moreover, pure obstructionism could backfire when facing a Liberal minority government. Canadians expect Parliament to get things done, and excessive Conservative filibusters or hyper-partisan attacks could make Poilievre look power-hungry at the country’s expense. As one senior Conservative put it, the 2025 defeat was “an unmitigated disaster” in part because “the guy [Poilievre] couldn’t do what needed to be done” – he failed to adjust when the context changed. If he repeats that mistake now by ignoring the public’s call for calmer leadership, the Conservatives could squander the goodwill they earned on economic issues and further erode trust among moderate voters. The next election could then become a referendum on Poilievre’s style, much as this one was – and there’s no guarantee Canadians will be any more receptive to a Canadian MAGA remake the second time around. In short, the divisive path might keep Poilievre popular in right-wing circles and social media, but it carries huge risks: deepening national rifts and driving centrists straight into the arms of Carney’s Liberals (or even third parties) out of sheer distaste for the tone of the debate.

Path 2: Constructive Opposition and Common Ground

The alternative is a very different road: one of constructive, mature opposition. This path would see Poilievre and his caucus taking a step back from constant combat and instead working across the aisle where possible. In a minority Parliament, the Conservatives have an opportunity to demonstrate that they can put country over party – to “always put Canada first,” as Poilievre himself said on election night. In his concession remarks, Poilievre struck a note of humility, acknowledging “we didn’t get over the finish line yet… change is needed, but change is hard… It takes time. It takes work.”. He vowed to “learn the lessons of tonight” so that the Conservatives can earn a better result next time. Those lessons presumably include recognizing that scaring moderate Canadians is a losing strategy. If taken to heart, this could push Poilievre to soften his approach and focus on areas of agreement with Carney’s agenda, rather than reflexive opposition.

What might a more collaborative Conservative strategy look like in practice? First, Poilievre could dial down the inflammatory rhetoric. The name-calling, the “own the libs” social media stunts, the blanket refusals – these would be replaced by a tone of respectful debate. The Opposition can still vigorously advocate for Conservative principles without demonizing the other side. For example, on economic policy there is actually significant overlap between Poilievre’s themes and Carney’s stated priorities. Both men campaigned on making life more affordable for the middle class, tackling inflation, and spurring economic growth. Carney, a former central banker with a fiscally pragmatic streak, signaled openness to pro-growth measures and avoiding “radical” shifts in how government operates. The Conservatives could choose to support or constructively amend Liberal bills that address shared goals – say, expanding housing supply or providing targeted tax relief – instead of opposing for opposition’s sake. By acknowledging when the government’s ideas have merit, Poilievre would show Canadians a more statesmanlike side of his leadership.

Secondly, the Conservatives can focus on uniting Canadians, not dividing them. Poilievre has an opportunity to explicitly disavow the more extreme elements that attached themselves to his movement. Imagine him standing up in the House of Commons and affirming that hateful speech and conspiracy theories have no place in his party. During the campaign, he already had to tell Donald Trump to “stay out” of Canada’s democracy after Trump’s meddling endorsements. Now, he can go further by drawing a clear line that his brand of conservatism is independent of U.S. extremes. Poilievre hinted at this when he tweeted, “The only people who will decide Canada’s future are Canadians at the ballot box… Canada will NEVER be the 51st state.”. Backing up such words with actions – for instance, disciplining any MPs who flirt with extremist rhetoric – would send a powerful signal that the Conservatives aim to be a broad, moderate coalition, not an alt-right insurgency. This would help assuage public fears that the party has drifted too far from mainstream values.

Finally, a collaborative approach means actively looking for policy compromises that serve Canadians. In a minority government, there will be plenty of chances to do this. Carney’s Liberals will need opposition support to pass legislation. Rather than instinctively saying “no” to every Liberal proposal, Poilievre could identify a few key areas to advance Conservative ideas through cooperation. National security and economic sovereignty are obvious ones, given the current climate with a hostile Trump administration in Washington. Poilievre has already promised to work with Carney in responding to U.S. trade aggression “for the country’s good”. Standing together against unfair U.S. tariffs or defending Canadian interests abroad is a win-win that would portray the Conservatives as patriots first, partisans second. Another area might be energy and the environment – perhaps supporting initiatives that balance climate responsibility with protecting jobs, a balance both Carney and moderate Conservatives likely agree on. On issues like the opioid crisis or indigenous reconciliation, a less combative opposition could even join bipartisan task forces or committees to develop solutions. These kinds of gestures would have been unthinkable in the heat of the campaign, but in governing, they could go a long way to build trust with swing voters who just want to see politicians working for them, not against each other.

Crucially, public sentiment favors this collaborative route. Polls consistently show Canadians prefer their leaders to work together on shared priorities, especially in a minority situation. Even many who didn’t vote Liberal want to see Carney succeed in keeping the country stable through uncertain times – and they want a constructive opposition to keep the government in check without sabotaging it. Poilievre’s own supporters, too, would benefit from him securing some policy wins via compromise rather than achieving nothing through stalemate. As Conservative strategist Jamie Ellerton noted, Poilievre has “rock-solid support” among the Tory base; he has political capital to spend on reaching out to others. By choosing pragmatism over purity, he might even broaden his base in the long run. It’s worth remembering that Stephen Harper, the last Conservative prime minister, succeeded in part by reassuring Canadians that he would govern responsibly and not dismantle consensus values. Poilievre could take a page from that book now, showing he can be tough but fair, ideological yet collaborative when it counts.

Public Sentiment: Canadians Are Wary of Extremes

The reaction from voters and experts in the election’s aftermath underscores a key point: Canadians have little appetite for imported ideological extremes. The 2025 campaign and its result became, in many ways, a referendum on polarizing politics. Carney explicitly framed the contest as a choice between Canadian unity and “Trumpism”. Meanwhile, swing voters who might normally consider the Conservatives were alarmed by the tone of Poilievre’s campaign. “Polarization” and “extremism” are now common words in our political discourse, and not in a good way. An Angus Reid survey last fall found that half of Canadians believe the major parties have abandoned the political middle, moving to fringes of left and right. Nearly 48% said they don’t feel any party truly represents their views. That disaffection cuts across ideological lines – including 40% of Conservative voters and 39% of Liberals who felt politically homeless. In other words, a large chunk of the electorate is exhausted with hyper-partisanship and yearns for a more moderate, cooperative politics.

Some of Poilievre’s own tactics fed into these fears. For instance, he made defunding the CBC (Canada’s public broadcaster) a major campaign plank, even convincing Elon Musk to label the CBC “government-funded media” on Twitter. Poilievre crowed that this proved the CBC is “Trudeau propaganda, not news”. To his base, this was red meat; to others, it came off as an American-style attack on the free press. It’s the kind of move that thrills partisans but worries everyone else about where this brand of politics leads. “Many Canadians are wary of extremism,” analyst Shachi Kurl observes, “and don’t want to see their country go the way of polarized American politics.” This wariness showed up in voting patterns. In suburban Toronto and Vancouver, traditionally swing areas, Liberal candidates won narrow races after emphasizing inclusivity and painting Poilievre as too extreme. Even some lifelong Conservatives quietly admitted they “held their nose” and voted Liberal or stayed home, not out of love for Carney but out of fear of what a hard-right turn could bring. The data suggest that polarization was Poilievre’s Achilles heel: what gained him passionate supporters also galvanized an even larger group against him.

If the Conservatives choose the collaborative path, they might begin to repair this image. By demonstrating responsibility and rejecting extreme rhetoric, they could regain the confidence of Canadians who are currently in that frustrated middle. Public opinion after the election shows openness to this. A post-election Abacus Data poll (as reported on CBC) indicated a majority of Canadians — including a good chunk of Conservative voters — want the opposition to work with the new government on key issues rather than constantly seek to tear it down. There is also broad relief across the electorate that overt “Trump-style” politics were checked by the voters this time. The consensus among many commentators is that Canadians dodged a bullet by avoiding a full-throated MAGA-style upheaval. That doesn’t mean Canadians have swung left – rather, they are craving decency and competence over chaos. This creates an opening for a “new and improved” Poilievre, one who can still champion conservative values but in a Canadian way that emphasizes order, civility, and unity over U.S.-imported chaos.

A Hopeful Call for Maturity and Unity

As the dust settles, even skeptics like myself find a glimmer of hope in this moment. Poilievre’s past behavior – the populist sloganeering, the take-no-prisoners partisanship – gives plenty of reason for cynicism. It’s hard to forget that this is the politician who cheered on the angry “Freedom Convoy” protests and belittled anyone standing in his way. Yet, the very fact that Canadians handed him a defeat while still giving his party a respectable vote share presents an opportunity. The message to Poilievre is not “go away”; it’s “change your approach and you might earn our trust.” In his concession speech, Poilievre told supporters, “change takes time. Most of all, it requires that we never give up.”. True enough – and one change many Canadians earnestly hope to see is a change in tone and attitude from the Conservative leader. It would require political maturity: the humility to recognize that campaigning is different from governing, and that Canadian democracy works best when leaders seek common ground.

Now is the time for political maturity and collaboration. Canada faces serious challenges – from responding to unprecedented U.S. hostility, to tackling inflation and housing affordability, to addressing climate and unity issues at home. These issues demand adults in the room, not partisan bomb-throwers. Poilievre and the Conservatives can still hold the government to account strongly and responsibly without descending into obstruction for its own sake. They can articulate a conservative alternative while also contributing to solutions. Being Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition (even without the Queen these days, the principle holds) means loyalty to Canada’s wellbeing, not blind loyalty to one’s base or an imported ideology.

It’s also time to reject imported ideological extremes once and for all. Canada is not the United States – our political culture prizes peace, order, and good government over performative outrage. The more our discourse has mimicked the toxic tribalism of U.S. cable news and Twitter wars, the more Canadians have pushed back. We need to double down on that rejection. There is no appetite here for a Canadian MAGA movement that vilifies our institutions, scapegoats minorities, or traffics in conspiracy theories. That’s not to say we can’t have passionate debate – of course we can, and we should. But our debates must remain rooted in respect, facts, and a shared commitment to the national interest. As Prime Minister Carney put it on election night, “we have to look out for ourselves… and above all, we have to take care of each other.” This ethos should guide all parties, government and opposition alike.

In closing, the path Poilievre chooses in the coming months will profoundly shape Canada’s political climate. A path of division would mean endless acrimony and a nation pulled apart by cynicism – a frightening prospect that most Canadians clearly reject. But a path of cooperation and principled opposition could mark the start of a new chapter, one in which our leaders actually listen to Canadians’ desire for unity. As a keen observer (and voter), I remain skeptical of sudden conversions, but I am hopeful. Hopeful that cooler heads in the Conservative Party will prevail. Hopeful that Mr. Poilievre, seeing the writing on the wall, will recalibrate and put country before ego. And hopeful that Canadian politics can rediscover its better self – one of civility, compromise, and yes, collaboration across party lines.

Canada has been reminded of who we are and what we stand for. Now it’s up to our political leaders – Poilievre above all – to prove that they heard that message. The election may be over, but the real test of leadership has just begun. It’s time to embrace cooperation and reject extremism, so that our Parliament can truly serve the people in these challenging times. Canadians will be watching closely, and in the next election, they will remember which path was taken.