September 1st, 2025 | Devon Kash

After Four Straight Losses, COnservatives Need A Reboot

How many more times do they need to lose?

Some recent polls show Conservatives in a strong position, but not strong enough. If Conservatives want to win, they will need to face some uncomfortable facts. The biggest is this: the party keeps going back to the same strategists who have failed three elections in a row. After losses in 2015, 2019, and 2021, Conservatives relied on the same inner circle for 2025—and Mark Carney beat them soundly. This isn't bad luck, it's the consequence of old habits and an unwillingness to change.

Just barely losing doesn't equate to a win. Poilievre breaching 40% still resulted in a major defeat.

The pattern is obvious. When faced with a choice between trying something new or repeating a losing formula, the Conservative campaign machine repeats the formula. That is why they tried to “soften” Pierre Poilievre the same way they tried to soften Andrew Scheer. In 2019, Scheer was packaged as a friendly, family-oriented figure while his strategists tried to temper his clever sense of humour and his use of hard words like socialism. In 2025, Poilievre was presented the same way—slightly tougher, but essentially a re-run of the same strategy. On the campaign trail, we got a watered down and fake-friendly Poilievre. Meanwhile, Carney positioned himself as serious, competent, and capable of leading the country through economic uncertainty.

There are only two reasons to “soften” a candidate. Either they're unknown and need to seem approachable, or they scare undecided voters. That was at least defensible with Scheer, who was largely unknown in 2019. It made far less sense with Poilievre. By 2025, he was well-known. His reputation was sharp and uncompromising. People who liked him liked him for exactly that. People who disliked him were never going to change their minds because he started wearing a permanent smile.

What the public wanted to know was whether he could be trusted with government. Could he manage the economy, trade disputes, and a strained federation? The Conservative campaign never answered that question. Truthfully, Poilievre's work history wasn't as convincing as Mark Carney's.

Poilievre had his strong and combative persona going for him, but Conservatives tried to soften it.

Polishing the Wrong Edge

Poilievre’s best political moments have always come when he forced Liberals to defend their record on inflation, deficits, and red tape. He was strong at pointing out the problems. But when the campaign shifted to remedies, Conservatives pivoted back to mood. “Bring it home” was a weak rallying cry, and it never answered the obvious follow-up: how? The attempt to make Poilievre more likable consumed energy that should have gone into proving him more competent.

This misfire was particularly costly against Carney. Carney’s biggest weakness was not warmth or relatability, it was that he looked like a technocrat. He could have been attacked as out of touch with everyday life. Instead, they downplayed Poilievre’s sharpness and tried to sell him as warm and approachable. That left the competence argument more uncontested. Carney’s background at the Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, and on Bay Street did the rest.

Conservatives could have used some of Poilievre's rough edges and combative style against Carney, instead of opting for the safe, soft middle. It was those rough edges that made Poilievre a popular leader among grassroots conservatives. 

Same Strategists, Same Results

Here is where the strategist problem becomes undeniable. The same circle of advisors who ran the 2015, 2019, and 2021 campaigns shaped 2025. Their habits are clear: keep the message narrow, avoid risk, suppress internal dissent, and control the candidate. That approach may prevent gaffes, but it also prevents breakthroughs. It produces disciplined but uninspiring campaigns.

The Conservative Party has spent a decade rewarding strategists who excel at internal politics—controlling nominations, managing conventions, and keeping caucus in line. Those skills are not the same as winning a general election. They know how to control the party. They do not know how to persuade the country. Against a Liberal opponent with Carney’s stature, their cautious style was exposed as outdated.

Carney

The rise of Mark Carney shouldn't have surprised anyone. Trudeau was never likely to lead the Liberals into another election. Carney was the obvious successor, with a professional background that gave him instant credibility. Yet Conservatives acted like they could run the same playbook that worked against Trudeau. It was a lazy assumption. Carney was not a tired politician. He was a serious executive stepping onto the political stage for the first time. His very biography suggested competence.

Trying to paint him as just another Liberal elitist was not enough. Voters with mortgages, businesses, or jobs tied to trade heard Carney talk about markets, fiscal policy, and energy in practical terms. He looked like someone who could manage crises. Poilievre looked like someone who could criticize them. When the ballot question became “who is more prepared to govern?” the result was never in doubt.

Moving Forward

Poilievre’s greatest strength has always been his sharp, unscripted, combative manner. But the Conservative campaign treated that as a liability instead of an asset. Fearing that voters might find him too harsh, the strategists tried to stage-manage him into a different persona. The result was a blurred version of the real Poilievre. Voters notice that sort of thing. They can accept a politician being tough. What they can't accept is a politician looking coached or unnatural. By sanding down his edges, the strategists blunted the very qualities that made him distinct.

What was missing was substance. Canadians wanted a governing plan. Instead of primarly focusing on clear, detailed agendas with costed housing policies, energy proposals, and trade strategies, Tories relied on silly slogans. Carney walked in with detailed proposals and a serious team behind him. He looked like government. Conservatives looked like an opposition party playing dress-up.

This is the reality Conservatives don't want to confront: Pierre Poilievre may not be the right leader to face Mark Carney. Against a generic Liberal, his style could have been an asset. Against Carney, it looks insufficient. Carney’s background reassures voters that he can handle the machinery of government. Poilievre’s background as a career politician doesn't inspire the same confidence. It's not a matter of fairness. It is a matter of comparison.

Voters are comparing resumes as much as they're comparing messages.

If the party is serious about winning, it has to consider replacing Poilievre with someone whose biography can neutralize Carney’s advantage. That does not mean copying Carney’s technocratic style. It means choosing a Conservative leader whose own experience signals competence, someone with a record of delivery, maybe a finance minister with credibility, or a leader from outside politics with proven management credentials. Someone voters can picture negotiating with Washington, overseeing the economy, or managing a defence crisis without hesitation.

Even with a new leader, nothing will change if the same old strategists are left in charge. The party needs a new campaign philosophy. That means fewer political operatives who specialize in controlling the leader, and more professionals who know how to present serious governing plans. It means showing voters not only what we stand against, but what we would build. It means giving voters confidence not only in a leader, but in a whole Cabinet-in-waiting.

The Conservatives must stop assuming voters will be won over by personality or anger alone. Canadians want competence. They want to know what happens the day after the election, not just how the campaign was fought. That requires a leader who is not just sharp in opposition, but credible as a prime minister.

The Conservative Party has now lost four elections in a row. The reason is not bad luck. It is a refusal to change. Conservatives keep recycling the same strategists and the same strategies, even after they fail. They keep trying to sell leaders as more likable, instead of proving them more competent. Against Mark Carney, that approach was doomed from the start. He embodied competence and seriousness.

If Poilievre can reinvent himself as a leader with a credible governing plan and a visible team of experts, he may still have a chance. But if he can't, then Conservatives have to face reality and look for a leader whose background matches Carney’s. The country is not asking for charm or slogans. It's asking for competence. Until we offer that, we will keep losing.