What’s Next After a Polarizing Election?

What a difference six months, a dissident cabinet minister and a rogue president can make to an election.

And, perhaps, to the future of Canadian politics.

In November, Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives looked to be heading to a big majority government, with 42 per cent support compared with the Liberals’ 23 per cent. The NDP were looking strong with 19 per cent.

Then the wheels fell off Poilievre’s campaign.

Former finance minister Chrystia Freeland quit cabinet and blasted Trudeau’s leadership. He quit, and Poilievre lost his main campaign focus. Neo-politician Mark Carney’s victory as Liberal leader left the Conservatives without an easy target.

President Donald Trump said he’d wage economic war and force Canada to become the 51st state, creating no end of headaches for Poilievre.

The Conservative leader, as the Liberals deftly showed in campaign ads, had often sounded like Trump. Poilievre had insisted Canada is a mess — “Everything is broken” — a message that played badly as Trump’s threats brought an uncharacteristic rise in Canadian patriotism.

And the campaign became about who could lead the country through the Trump crisis, not grievances about the past decade. (Many of them quite justified.)

The result played out last night, as the Liberals’ seat count hovered around 167, just short of a majority.

What now?

First is how Carney will form a government. The Liberal minority government has relied on NDP and Bloc Québécois support to remain in power since 2021. Neither party is likely to support a Conservative government, but both may want to negotiate terms for supporting the Liberals. (Which, as pharmacare and dental care programs implemented as a result of NDP pressure, could be good for voters.)

The second, bigger, question is whether Canada is moving toward a two-party state, like the U.S. (with the Bloc Québécois as a major regional party). The NDP and Greens had dismal results Monday. In 2021, the NDP won 24 seats and 16 per cent of the popular vote.

This year, as I write, the NDP is on track to win seven seats and six per cent of the popular vote — not enough to ensure official party status and the funding and other benefits that brings.

The Greens are projected to win one seat and one per cent of the vote. This election was about a choice between two parties and others were squeezed out.

That would be bad, as we’ve seen in the U.S. People are forced to hold their noses and vote for a party they don’t really support to block an alternative they consider even worse. The result is increasing polarization. (This would not be an issue if Trudeau had delivered on his 2015 promise to bring in proportional representation.)

The third question is which leaders will survive this election. Carney, of course.

But NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh lost in his own riding and ran a lacklustre campaign as his party’s support collapsed. He announced his resignation Monday night. Elizabeth May won her seat, but the Greens were irrelevant in this campaign and May is likely in her last term.

Poilievre’s future is less clear. The federal Conservatives blew a huge lead in the polls in a few months and he didn’t deliver the majority that was expected. They did make big gains in their share of the popular vote and seats.

They lost. Conservatives — like Doug Ford’s strategists in Ontario — are questioning how Poilievre’s team managed the campaign. Especially how the Conservatives failed to pivot after Trump’s threats.

A fair question, with a clear answer. Poilievre had no backup plan. He couldn’t argue he had the experience and competence to deal with U.S. threats. Poilievre has been a career politician since he was 21.

And the Conservative campaign was based on what was wrong with Canada, not what would make life better for people. Whining about “woke ideologies” does not offer a promise of a better future.

But Poilievre suggested Monday night he hoped to stay on as Conservative leader. Others in the party may have different plans.

Pundits like to talk and write about “consequential elections.”

This time, they’re right.