pc28����

Matt Gurney: I was using that word more as a play on the phase “election post-mortem” than I was to describe what I think happened to them. I’ll confess something. I don’t know what to make of that election. It’s different from any other I’ve covered. Something wild I discovered when writing my column is that Poilievre got a bigger share of the vote this time than did the last five PMs to win a majority. So I can get why Tories might want to stay the course and write this one off as a fluke. They could be right. They could go wrong, though. Someone needs to be that guy in the room and get them thinking about that.

SD: Let me throw up some evidence for my more-of-the-same argument. First, there’s Poilievre’s decision to run for a seat in one of the safest Conservative strongholds in Canada, in the Alberta riding of Battle River—Crowfoot. I get that the leader, after the humbling defeat in his Ottawa-area riding, might be looking for a little safety and comfort now. But it ensconces Poilievre in the heart of the Conservative base — and playing to the base doesn’t win general elections.

MG: I don’t think we disagree about that. There was definitely a real current of loser energy for the first week or so. Needing a week to call Bruce Fanjoy and then running off to a deepest-blue seat to regroup were both ugly signs. So I’ll grant that. But I think we are talking past each other. Poilievre won more of the vote share than Jean Chrétien ever did. Than Stephen Harper did. Than Justin Trudeau did. It didn’t matter this time. But if this time was a fluke and the next election is more like the ones we’ve seen for 30-plus-years, no changes at all may be necessary to produce a Poilievre majority next time. I’m sure assuming that’s the case is balm for wounded Tory egos. It could also be true. Risky assumption, though.

SD: What do you think about the decision to put Andrew Scheer in the role of stand-in leader in the Commons for the next couple of months at least?

MG: I think that’s another signal that Poilievre is rattled.

SD: Interesting. I see it as the opposite: that Scheer will do what he did before the election — be the reliable, attack-dog deputy for Poilievre. I don’t see it as evidence of a tone change coming.

MG: I don’t, either. Scheer is a safe (non-threatening) pick for a CPC leader who suddenly seems to place a premium on safety. But. We seem to be dancing around the issue here. I’ll just ask it directly. If the NDP recovers even modestly, why do you think the CPC needs to shift its tone?

SD: I want to retire the phrase: “but we were so good in the House of Commons.” I thought that argument had been extinguished after the defeat of Tom Mulcair and the NDP 10 years ago, but I think it’s back now among Conservatives. From my standpoint, Poilievre lost his poll lead in part because he was, to borrow a phrase, ”too Trumpy.” Speaking of which, I’m sure I wasn’t the only one surprised to read about the fundraising email, Conservatives were sending out last week, saying Liberals were trying to “tip the scales” in recounts. I know it isn’t exactly like Donald Trump’s rigged-election whining, but it’s a little too close, to my ears anyway.

MG: I think you missed my question.

SD: OK, I see what you’re saying. The Conservatives were doing fine when the NDP was reasonably strong, so if the NDP recovers, it’s back to business as usual for the Tories. I guess I continue to believe that the Conservatives aren’t government today because they played too hard to the angry base. Or maybe I just want a tone change because I found question period too ugly to watch before the election.

MG: I’m repeating myself. But playing too hard to the angry base got them the best vote share any party got since 1988 … except for the Carney Liberals, who did even better. If that level of Liberal support is the new normal, the CPC is screwed. If that’s Carney’s high-water mark, the Tories can play to their base right into power.

SD: I know I risk sounding like I’m pleading for politics to be nicer (and I should know better.) But I really hope some of that anger boils off the political atmosphere in this country before we go to the polls again. I simply don’t believe, or I don’t want to believe, that a country can be governed by anger and seething resentment.

MG: That’s not the issue. The issue is whether elections can be won that way. They clearly have been before!

SD: Sunny ways, my friend. I will say this to close — and maybe be a little contrary with my own argument. There are signs, at the margins, that Conservatives are doing a little bit of tone adjustment. We’re seeing them on CBC now and Poilievre did wish Carney well when the PM went off to meet Trump. I still have the feeling, however, that this is not “real change,” to borrow another phrase from 2015.

MG: I definitely think they will make tactical adjustments. Like you, I noticed more of a presence on the CBC. And it took a week, but Poilievre did call Fanjoy, say he’d be reflecting, and the like. But the issue here isn’t tactics. It’s whether their strategy needs an overhaul. You think it does. I think it might, but if they catch a break, it might not. Time will tell what they decide for themselves.