Under Grumpa's Hat

Since Stephen Harper, the Conservative Party of Canada has lost four straight federal elections. That is a cold streak even the Toronto Maple Leafs would blush at. Twice, the Liberals were practically handing them the keys, yet the Conservatives fumbled the handoff.

In 2019, Andrew Scheer had an opening. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was limping after the SNC-Lavalin scandal and ethics breaches. Instead of seizing the chance with fresh ideas for central and eastern Canada, Scheer stuck with Harper’s western-centric playbook. The result was predictable.

When the Conservatives last went shopping for a new leader, Harper made sure Pierre Poilievre was the chosen one over the more experienced and centre-right Jean Charest. An experienced politician, Charest would never have allowed Harper to pull the strings from behind the curtain, and Harper knew it. Rather than risk losing his influence, he threw his weight behind Poilievre, a candidate far more comfortable in Harper’s shadow.

Poilievre doubled down on that same script. Fear, division, constant attacks on Trudeau, and policies that thrilled their western base but did little for voters in Ontario, Quebec, or the Maritimes. At their peak, the Conservatives held a twenty-point lead in the polls. By election night, it evaporated. That is like being up three goals going into the third period and somehow still losing in overtime, the party’s second fumble.

To make matters worse, Poilievre even lost his own Carleton seat to the Liberals, a riding Conservatives had considered untouchable for decades. He had to be parachuted into Battle River–Crowfoot in Alberta to get back into Parliament, a safe seat where a rock painted blue could win. That sent a clear message: even some Conservatives had grown tired of the routine.

Misinformation as a Strategy

A Leger poll in May 2025 found that more than three-quarters of Canadians believe misinformation affected the last election. Strikingly, 83 percent of Conservative voters themselves admitted it played a role, more than Liberal supporters and almost as much as NDP voters. When even your own supporters are saying misinformation is shaping your campaign, that is less a strategy and more an indictment.

An inquiry earlier this year called disinformation “an existential threat” to Canadian democracy. Yet the Conservatives seem to treat it like just another campaign tool. Short-term gains, perhaps, but at a cost of long-term trust.

The Liberal Pivot

To be clear, this is not cheerleading for the Liberals. It is pointing out the obvious: they adapted. Trudeau, watching his popularity tank, stepped aside. The Liberals elected Mark Carney with overwhelming support. Carney brought global credibility, calm under pressure, and a methodical approach that contrasted sharply with Poilievre’s populist tone.

In the snap election, Carney flipped a twenty-point Conservative lead into a Liberal win. He showed Canadians that competence, unity, and fresh direction still matter.

Same Old, Same Old

The Conservatives now talk of a leadership review. But if Harper continues pulling the strings, nothing will change. Whether Poilievre or another Harper-approved understudy, it will be more of the same: western focus, personal attacks, misinformation, and surrendering winnable ground in central and eastern Canada.

Meanwhile, the Liberals refreshed their brand. The NDP, after a dismal showing, will likely retool as well. That leaves the Conservatives as the only major party stubbornly running in circles.

Conclusion

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. Four losses in a row should be enough to make anyone rethink their playbook. But if the Conservatives keep recycling Harper’s tactics, they can expect to keep recycling the same outcome: defeat.

And Canadians will keep watching, popcorn in hand, as the so-called party of change refuses to change itself.

More reading:

• Fake News, Real Consequences
• Alberta’s Loyalty Shifting To Become Its Own Liability
• Mark Carney: Misunderstood or Mislabelled?
• Blind Party Loyalty: The Slow Death of Democracy