Pierre Poilievre: A ‘ripper’ when he should be a ‘weaver’

History, of course, does not always repeat itself. But trends and patterns are discernible.

Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre desperately wants to become prime minister. He envisions himself as following the path of Stephen Harper, the last Conservative prime minister, who held power from 2006 to 2015. Yet the political strategy and style Poilievre has adopted will almost certainly prevent him from achieving his objective any time in the near future.

Poilievre, who was first elected to the House of Commons in 2004 at the age of 24, earned a well-deserved reputation as Harper’s “attack dog,” confronting members of the Liberal government then led by Paul Martin with sarcasm and insults.

Five years later, the Globe and Mail dubbed Poilievre one of “the 10 most irritating people on Parliament Hill.” Harper eventually appointed him to his cabinet in July 2013 as minister of state for democratic reform, where he aggressively targeted Elections Canada.

In his recent book “Ripper: The Making of Pierre Poilievre,” Ottawa lawyer and historian Mark Bourrie — borrowing a comparison framed by New York Times columnist David Brooks — argued that Poilievre is a politician who is best described as a “ripper,” rather than a “weaver.”

Rippers, as Bourrie explains, “see politics as war that give their lives meaning,” while weavers “try to fix things by bringing people together and building consensus.”

To the detriment of his own career aspirations, Poilievre continues to ignore a basic Canadian political history lesson: In the past 158 years no prime minister has ever been a ripper. Long-term political power in Canada has been won by those leaders who have mainly straddled the middle of the political spectrum, so-called weavers who made compromises and attempted to appeal to a broad range of voters.

This was how Harper, who united the Reform/Alliance Party with the Progressive Conservatives, was able to finally win power, first in minority governments from 2006 to 2011 and then with a majority government from 2011 to 2015.

Understanding an old Mackenzie King dictum that extreme and inflexible policies will never sustain long-term victory at the polls in Canada, Harper built coalitions and pushed highly divisive issues such as abortion to the background.

He adopted right of centre policies that stressed balanced budgets, lower taxes — including reducing the GST — law and order, tougher immigration regulations and fostered positive economic relations with the U.S. He also apologized for the government’s historic role in the establishment of residential schools and created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Harper also benefited, most notably in his victory in 2011, from the disorganization and internal dissension hampering the Liberal Party at the time.

Poilievre does not seem to have reflected on Harper’s experience, even though it is clear that his refusal to alter course has worked against him. True, in the last federal election, the Conservatives won 24 more seats than in the election of 2021 — though the Liberals took 17 more seats and formed a minority government with new Leader Mark Carney. Moreover, in the 2025 contest, Poilievre lost his own Ottawa-area seat and was forced to run in a byelection in a safe Alberta riding to resume his position in Parliament.

Recently, one Conservative MP, Matt Jeneroux from Edmonton resigned and another, Chris d’Entremont of Nova Scotia, crossed the floor to join the Liberals. Then this past week, Markham-Unionville Conservative MP Michael Ma crossed to the Liberals as well, saying in a statement “I entered public service to help people — to focus on solutions, not division.”

An Angus Reid Institute poll from mid-November showed that only 34 per cent of Canadians rate Poilievre favourably, while 60 per cent rate him unfavourably and six per cent don’t know or won’t say how they feel.

Still, Poilievre has stubbornly insisted that he will not change his ripper leadership style or policies and remains confident that he will maintain the support of his caucus in the leadership review that will be held at the end of January — a review that was triggered by the party’s loss in the 2025 election.

In many ways, Poilievre’s confidence in himself and his inflexibility and refusal to see that a change of course might work to his advantage is reminiscent of another Conservative Party leader of an earlier generation, Arthur Meighen.

A refined lawyer and a brilliant debater, Meighen, who served as the party’s leader from 1921 to 1926 (and again from November 1941 to December 1942), was definitely not a ripper. Yet, he was not much of a weaver either. He would not budge on his support of protective tariffs that alienated the west. He was proud of drafting the conscription bill during the First World War as a member of Robert Borden’s Union Government, which made French Canadians detest him. Much of the labour movement hated him for his role in breaking the Winnipeg General Strike. And Montreal businessmen resented him for nationalizing money-losing railways.

Firm in his convictions, Meighen ultimately failed as a party leader (despite the party’s success in the 1925 election). His Liberal nemesis, Mackenzie King, a skilled weaver who forged alliances and appealed to middle-of-the road voters, was prime minister for nearly 22 years; Meighen was prime minister for a total of 20 months.

This is fact of history that Poilievre might want to contemplate further.

» Now & Then is a column in which historian Allan Levine puts the events of today in a historical context. His most recent book is “The Dollar-A-Year Men: How the Best Business Brains in Canada Helped to Win the Second World War.” This column was first published in the Winnipeg Free Press.