By Lisa Van Dusen

January 30, 2026

The consensus on Pierre Poilievre’s fate as leader of Canada’s federal Conservative Party is that he will sail through this weekend’s leadership review in Calgary.

That a leader who lost the last election, lost his own seat in that election, and is unpopular beyond his own party can anticipate no trouble acing a leadership review has effectively made the magic number associated with most leadership reviews all-but beside the point.

Even people who aren’t partial to Poilievre as leader of the party want him to stay exactly where he is, and some of them aren’t even Conservatives.

Yes, Poilievre lost last April’s election in part due to his relentless, yearlong campaign for Justin Trudeau’s resignation, which, in the event, made him the dog that caught the Carney.

That Poilievre also lost his own Ottawa-area riding would normally have been grounds for an election-night resignation as party leader (see Singh, Jagmeet…same night, different party.)

Poilievre was not compelled to make that speech last April 28th because he won 3 million additional votes nationally, 23 additional seats and 41.3% of the popular vote — the highest the party had won since 1988.

Also, Poilievre’s lock on the activist, populist, Trumpist Conservative Party base gave him more margin of maneuver than he might otherwise have had.

But the variable that has saved him since then, that has made it worth his while to return to the House of Commons via a safe Alberta seat and ride out the MP defections and bad personal polling numbers and caucus revolt rumours is Mark Carney. Not because Carney is vulnerable but because he isn’t.

The Conservative Party of Canada, like its precursor, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, has a long history of defenestrations and coups, dating back to John Diefenbaker’s removal as party leader in 1967 a leisurely four years after he lost the 1963 election to Lester Pearson.

There are potential Poilievre successors who fall into that percentage of Canadians who — particularly in a time of existential threat both internal and external — prefer Mark Carney as prime minister.

Internecine warfare was so intrinsic to the party’s DNA that a 1981 book by political scientist George Perlin dubbed it The Tory Syndrome.

As with the UK Tories, intrigue was long part of Canadian Tory territory, with the proxies of aspiring usurpers plotting Shakespearean regicide from corner tables in the West Block cafeteria. Brian Mulroney ground that to a halt, in part by knowing it when he saw it, in part by keeping his caucus happy, and in part by winning two majorities.

The downside was that, when he left rather than risk not winning a third, there was no-one with an organization in place waiting to take over, the way Paul Martin had been waiting for Jean Chrétien’s departure, or — back to the UK — Gordon Brown had been cooling his heels for Tony Blair to finally depart Number 10.

The same fate befell Canada’s Conservatives post-Stephen Harper, when the lack of a succession plan — consensual or not — saw the party cycle through three leaders in five years.

So, revolving-door fatigue is an advantage for Poilievre that also gives him more leeway than his post-Harper predecessors, Andrew Scheer and Erin O’Toole, could expect. But Poilievre’s greatest asset in this performance review has been Mark Carney.

The traditional succession plotting that would have dogged Poilievre since last April has been doused by the competition chill of Carney’s success as prime minister, as well as by his appeal to Bay Street Conservatives and Red Tories who like him just where is for affinity and competence reasons.

They are not averse to Poilievre also remaining where he is as a seat warmer until Carney’s political life runs its course and Donald Trump’s American nightmare slays the populist siege.

There are potential Poilievre successors who — particularly in a time of existential threat both internal and external — fall into that percentage of Canadians who prefer Mark Carney as prime minister. And they would rather watch Carney take on Donald Trump, or Alberta separatists, or Quebec separatists, than watch Poilievre, hamstrung by his base, fail to do so — or worse — try to do it themselves.

Why would a Doug Ford or a Caroline Mulroney or a Mark Mulroney want to run against Mark Carney now, if they can run against a less able player to be named later five years from now, when Canadians will be more inclined to the alternance that Carney’s arrival pre-empted?

After what was certainly the worst political year of his life, it may seem odd to call Pierre Poilievre lucky. And it’s Mark Carney he can thank.

Policy Editor and Publisher Lisa Van Dusen has served as Washington bureau chief for Sun Media, Washington Columnist for the Ottawa Citizen, international writer for Peter Jennings at ABC News, and as an editor at AP National in New York and UPI in Washington.