Changing leaders will not save the Liberals

HALIFAX—Ask not for whom the polls toll, they toll for thee. That is the message Canadians are giving these days whenever they are surveyed about their views of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government. Abacus found that just 14 per cent of Canadians think the Liberals deserve to be re-elected. Nearly six in 10 respondents disapproved of the prime minister's performance in office. If an election were held today, the latest seat projections from 338Canada mirror the dire polling for the Liberals. Not only would the Conservatives win a solid majority government, with as many as 208 seats, the Liberals would hold just 64. It is not surprising, then, that so many informed observers are now saying that the only thing between the Liberal Party and electoral disaster is a change in leadership. There is an argument to be made for that position. In our leader-centric system, leaders have become something akin to the lead singer of a rock band. They have become the party’s identity. When they are popular, the party gets the benefit of their charisma, as the Liberals did in 2015 from the guy with the famous name. But when they become unpopular, as Trudeau currently is, the entire party wears it. But can a change in leaders right a ship that is listing as badly as the Liberals are right now? That is not as certain a proposition as proponents of a leadership change might imagine. The classic case in Canadian politics of changing leaders in order to avoid a crushing defeat at the polls is the Brian Mulroney to Kim Campbell handoff. After eight years in power and numerous scandals, Mulroney and the Progressive Conservatives knew that he had worn out his welcome with Canadians. Their calculation was that, by having Mulroney step away and making Campbell Canada’s first female prime minister, voters might be mollified. It was an epic miscalculation. With Campbell at the helm, the Progressive Conservatives were nearly wiped out in the 1993 election, winning just two seats. The result was not a reflection on Campbell. It was a passionate rejection of a leadership change made for purely strategic reasons, rather than a new vision for the party. It was the deepest form of cynicism. Voters knew it, and expressed their rage. The Liberal Party has had broad experience with leadership changes that didn’t work. Faced with growing unpopularity, then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau resigned shortly before the federal election in 1984. He was replaced by John Turner. As a strategic move, it didn’t work. Turner was soundly defeated by Mulroney, who won the largest majority government in Canadian history. He would go on to win back-to-back majorities. The same thing happened to the Liberals when Jean Chrétien resigned in December 2003. Chrétien was not only facing a leadership review, he was mired in the Ad Sponsorship scandal. Paul Martin had just over two years in office as prime minister, but could not shake off public disgust over of the Ad Scam Affair, particularly after the Gomery Inquiry showed how truly awful the scandal was. In the end, Martin wound up wearing Ad Scam, despite calling a public inquiry. He was defeated at the polls in early 2006 by Harper. With Harper in office for what would turn out to be three terms, the Liberals started to change leaders in an effort to revive their flagging fortunes. With the right lead singer, they thought they’d be on top of the charts again. There was Stéphane Dion, whose brief leadership lasted just a year. Party grandees decided that they needed someone with charisma to replace the ineffectual professor. Their choice to replace Dion was Michael Ignatieff. He won the Liberal leadership in 2009 with 97 per cent of the vote at the Vancouver convention. Ignatieff was an academic superstar, a television presenter on the BBC, author, and a Harvard human rights professor. Party brass liked to refer to him as the “bionic liberal.” Ignatieff’s short stint as Liberal leader came to a crashing end in 2011. The man who was supposed to save the party led the Liberals to their worst defeat in history. The “natural governing party” won just 34 seats. Adding insult to injury, Ignatieff lost his own seat. Jack Layton and the NDP became the official opposition that year, and Harper won his first and only majority government. The disgrace was total, and Ignatieff quickly resigned. Bob Rae became interim leader until Justin Trudeau won the permanent job in 2013, with 80 per cent support at the party’s Ottawa leadership convention. Which brings us back to the current dilemma facing the Liberal Party with respect to a leadership change. History makes a good case against the view that an 11th-hour change at the top can save a political party. As both Mulroney and Chrétien have shown, when a leader steps down to avoid a political reckoning, it can bring the opposite result. If Trudeau were to step down now—which he insists he won’t—it would not only look like the worst kind of expediency, but it would also probably doom his successor to a short and unhappy political life. There is simply not enough time for anyone to set a new agenda or tone for the party before the next election. And that might well come sooner than later if the supply-and-confidence agreement between the NDP and the Liberals falls apart. The scandals facing the government at the moment—ArriveCan and the Green Fund—might well persuade NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh that this is not the time to be seen propping up the Liberals. And there is another problem that a Trudeau resignation would present. How could the party attract a “star” candidate like Mark Carney, when all indications suggest that becoming Liberal leader is a ticket to becoming leader of the opposition, not prime minister? After nearly three terms in office, the Liberals have entered rock-and-hard-place territory. Looking for a new "shiny pony" late in the day won’t shield the party from having to face the consequences of their record: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Michael Harris is an award-winning author and journalist. The Hill Times

Changing leaders will not save the Liberals

If Justin Trudeau were to step down now, it would not only look like the worst kind of expediency, it would likely doom his successor to a short, unhappy political life.

Canada’s aging crisis and a call for reform in eldercare

As COP29 wraps up, will Canada finally stop funding fossils this fall?

Addressing the threat of antimicrobial resistance

The wisdom of Homer Simpson and Aaron Sorkin

Climate finance should target resilient food systems

Trump’s ‘America First’ plans may undermine global trade

Trudeau still best option for Liberals

The Poilievre Party or Harper 2.0?

This just in: Charlotte Gray, Alister Campbell, Kennedy Stewart, and Andrew McDougall all have new books out

The play of politics: elections and leaders

In politics and pro-leagues, true leaders must know when to go

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Get free news updates

Submit a guest opinion article

Changing leaders will not save the Liberals

If Justin Trudeau were to step down now, it would not only look like the worst kind of expediency, it would likely doom his successor to a short, unhappy political life.

Get The Weekend Point of View Newsletter